How Powerful Was Gondor At Its Height

[Aldarion]

Just something I wrote:

How Powerful Was Gondor At Its Height

Imrahil’s Statement In Return of the King, Prince Imrahil notes that the 7 000 strong force would have been a “vanguard” of Gondor’s army in time of its greatest strength. T…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

I basically worked off the assumption that Gondor = Byzantium. So I took a look at Byzantine military organization, and then extrapolated from that and from what little we know about Gondor at its greatest (namely, Imrahil's line about "7 000 men" and information about its territorial extent). Result is... well, it was likely far more powerful than most people think, with army numbers going into low six digits.

 

[Olorgando]

What leaves me scratching my head is what is meant with a "vanguard". My impression from perhaps the last 100 years or a bit more of warfare would be hardly more than a scouting party, certainly nothing that could engage a serious massing of troop on the opposing side. Not something that such a "vanguard" would be expected to do, anyway. I would guess that they (the scouts) would have the job of informing the main mass of troops about where it would be of the greatest advantage to attack the enemy - or, if the enemy seemed to be at too much of an advantage, how to avoid any contact with them (I'm thinking of Ghân-buri-Ghân leading the Rohirrim, 6000 riders, past a Mordor force sent to impede them by the, by then, secret Stonewain valley … )

 

[TrollinSun]

Just to clarify Gondor or Arnor?

 

[Olorgando]

Erm … what's unclear about the thread title? 🤨

 

[Aldarion]

What leaves me scratching my head is what is meant with a "vanguard". My impression from perhaps the last 100 years or a bit more of warfare would be hardly more than a scouting party, certainly nothing that could engage a serious massing of troop on the opposing side. Not something that such a "vanguard" would be expected to do, anyway. I would guess that they (the scouts) would have the job of informing the main mass of troops about where it would be of the greatest advantage to attack the enemy - or, if the enemy seemed to be at too much of an advantage, how to avoid any contact with them (I'm thinking of Ghân-buri-Ghân leading the Rohirrim, 6000 riders, past a Mordor force sent to impede them by the, by then, secret Stonewain valley … )

Vanguard, as used historically, was supposed to be capable of engaging the enemy in battle. In fact, it was one of basic battle divisions. As I noted, Byzantine army typically deployed in five divisions on march - vanguard, left wing, right wing, center and rear guard. According to Byzantine doctrine, all these divisions were of equal strength, which is how I calculated strength of Gondor's field army at its height. Now, Western European medieval armies could be and were far more varied... but the thing is, Gondor is not based on Western European feudal societies, it is based on Byzantine Empire. Which means it is there we have to look at if we want to understand its organization, be it political or military one, just as we have to look at Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to understand Rohan.

The above, by the way, would make Dunlendings the Celts who lived in Britain (Rohan) before Anglo-Saxons (Rohirrim) arrived. Which would mean that they are related to Gondorians...

But anyway, scouting party is one thing, vanguard another. Vanguard is a battle division, scouting party is just that - scouting party, relying on stealth and speed. Army on march would be surrounded by scouts, not just ahead but to the sides and rear as well. These would, if threatened, take shelter behind the vanguard, but were not vanguard (or rear guard, or flank guard - when such was deployed) in and by themselves.

 

[TrackerOrc]

Just something I wrote:

How Powerful Was Gondor At Its Height

Imrahil’s Statement In Return of the King, Prince Imrahil notes that the 7 000 strong force would have been a “vanguard” of Gondor’s army in time of its greatest strength. T…

militaryfantasy.home.blog

I basically worked off the assumption that Gondor = Byzantium. So I took a look at Byzantine military organization, and then extrapolated from that and from what little we know about Gondor at its greatest (namely, Imrahil's line about "7 000 men" and information about its territorial extent). Result is... well, it was likely far more powerful than most people think, with army numbers going into low six digits.

Would this be evidence of Gondor not helping Arnor nearly as much as she could have? Obviously, Gondor had its problems over the years, but when they finally sent aid to Arvedui (too late, obviously), their fleet struck the people of the North as "an army of power, with munitions and provisions for a war of great kings", yet "this was but a small sending-force of the whole might of Gondor." (Appendix A Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion).
Could this be evidence of a rather brutal realpolitik on the part of the Council of Gondor, following on from their rejection of Arvedui's claim to the crown?

 

[Aldarion]

Would this be evidence of Gondor not helping Arnor nearly as much as she could have? Obviously, Gondor had its problems over the years, but when they finally sent aid to Arvedui (too late, obviously), their fleet struck the people of the North as "an army of power, with munitions and provisions for a war of great kings", yet "this was but a small sending-force of the whole might of Gondor." (Appendix A Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion).
Could this be evidence of a rather brutal realpolitik on the part of the Council of Gondor, following on from their rejection of Arvedui's claim to the crown?

It is a possibility. It definitely is the evidence of Gondor pursuing its own goals regardless of what happened to Arnor - and likely also the pride of Gondor, which led them to ignore "irrelevant" squabbles in the North. But this is only true for earlier period. When it comes to events around the fall of Arnor, Gondor did actually have formal alliance with Arnor at the time, and there is no evidence for any reason they did not send help earlier beyond what is already noted in the text - that kings of Gondor themselves did not feel safe. Keep in mind that peak power of Gondor was in TA 1050, while Arthedain fell in 1974. This means that fall of Arthedain was 925 years after peak of Gondor's power discussed here. Between 1050 and 1974, there were:

• Sauron arrives to Dol Guldur (~1100)
• Easterling attack on Gondor (1248)
• Kin-Strife in Gondor (1432 - 1447)
• Loss of Umbar (1448)
• Great Plague in Gondor (1636)
• Easterling attack on Gondor (1851)
• Loss of eastern provinces of Gondor (1856)
• Alliance with Arnor (1940)
• Wainrider attacks (1944)

Assuming that Great Plague killed 30% - 50% of population, and eastern provinces meant Rhovanion (which had 5-13% of population), its military would have fallen from 175 000 - 200 000 men to 75 000 - 133 000 men by 1856. In reality, reduction in size of military will have been greater than proportional, as cities - main sources of wealth - would have been affected far more. Using Treadgold's estimates for Byzantium post Great Plague, Byzantine army fell from 380 000 under Justinian I to 130 000 in 641., while population also fell from 19,5 000 000 to 10,5 000 000. Thus Gondor can be expected to have lost 50% of population and that army fell to 35% of previous number. This combined with loss of Rhovanion would have given final population as being 6 500 000 and army of 40 000 - 70 000 in 1856. And it is this army that Gondor will have had to face Wainriders with.

Just for parallel of events in North:

• Foundation of Angmar (1300)
• Fall of Rhuadur to Angmar (1409)
• Great Plague in North (1637?)
• Angmar temporarily defeated (1851)
• Destruction of Arnor (1974)

 

[TrackerOrc]

It is a possibility. It definitely is the evidence of Gondor pursuing its own goals regardless of what happened to Arnor - and likely also the pride of Gondor, which led them to ignore "irrelevant" squabbles in the North. But this is only true for earlier period. When it comes to events around the fall of Arnor, Gondor did actually have formal alliance with Arnor at the time, and there is no evidence for any reason they did not send help earlier beyond what is already noted in the text - that kings of Gondor themselves did not feel safe. Keep in mind that peak power of Gondor was in TA 1050, while Arthedain fell in 1974. This means that fall of Arthedain was 925 years after peak of Gondor's power discussed here. Between 1050 and 1974, there were:

• Sauron arrives to Dol Guldur (~1100)
• Easterling attack on Gondor (1248)
• Kin-Strife in Gondor (1432 - 1447)
• Loss of Umbar (1448)
• Great Plague in Gondor (1636)
• Easterling attack on Gondor (1851)
• Loss of eastern provinces of Gondor (1856)
• Alliance with Arnor (1940)
• Wainrider attacks (1944)

Assuming that Great Plague killed 30% - 50% of population, and eastern provinces meant Rhovanion (which had 5-13% of population), its military would have fallen from 175 000 - 200 000 men to 75 000 - 133 000 men by 1856. In reality, reduction in size of military will have been greater than proportional, as cities - main sources of wealth - would have been affected far more. Using Treadgold's estimates for Byzantium post Great Plague, Byzantine army fell from 380 000 under Justinian I to 130 000 in 641., while population also fell from 19,5 000 000 to 10,5 000 000. Thus Gondor can be expected to have lost 50% of population and that army fell to 35% of previous number. This combined with loss of Rhovanion would have given final population as being 6 500 000 and army of 40 000 - 70 000 in 1856. And it is this army that Gondor will have had to face Wainriders with.

Just for parallel of events in North:

• Foundation of Angmar (1300)
• Fall of Rhuadur to Angmar (1409)
• Great Plague in North (1637?)
• Angmar temporarily defeated (1851)
• Destruction of Arnor (1974)

Excellent post, might I say.
I think I've always had the vague suspicion that Gondor was always a little late to the party in helping Arnor, and the behaviour of the Council and the Stewards later seemed to reinforce this feeling. Not at all saying that Gondor didn't face their own huge problems, but I've always felt that it was state policy to happily keep Arnor in a subservient role, right up to the time of the War of the Ring and the actions of Denethor himself. He isn't presented as a very attractive figure, but is he actually doing anything 'wrong' as per the normal relationship with Arnor when he basically dismisses the claims of Aragorn? Isn't this just a renewal of the policy towards Arvedui?

 

[Halasían]

I think I've always had the vague suspicion that Gondor was always a little late to the party in helping Arnor, and the behaviour of the Council and the Stewards later seemed to reinforce this feeling. Not at all saying that Gondor didn't face their own huge problems, but I've always felt that it was state policy to happily keep Arnor in a subservient role, right up to the time of the War of the Ring and the actions of Denethor himself. He isn't presented as a very attractive figure, but is he actually doing anything 'wrong' as per the normal relationship with Arnor when he basically dismisses the claims of Aragorn? Isn't this just a renewal of the policy towards Arvedui?

Yes, I have always seen this as a bit politically adversarial especially as far as Gondor and House Hurin went. Arvedui technically had claim to the throne of Gondor as his lineage was no less than Aragorn II's at the time of the War of the Ring. Maybe moreso in the fact he had married Firiel, the daughter of King Ondoher. But power once given is not so easily forfieted as we seen with Steward Mardil Voronwë, and again with Steward Denethor.

As an aside to this, one has to wonder what communications took place between Arnor/Arthedain and Gondor via the Palantir through the centuries.

​

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

Excellent post, might I say.
I think I've always had the vague suspicion that Gondor was always a little late to the party in helping Arnor, and the behaviour of the Council and the Stewards later seemed to reinforce this feeling. Not at all saying that Gondor didn't face their own huge problems, but I've always felt that it was state policy to happily keep Arnor in a subservient role, right up to the time of the War of the Ring and the actions of Denethor himself. He isn't presented as a very attractive figure, but is he actually doing anything 'wrong' as per the normal relationship with Arnor when he basically dismisses the claims of Aragorn? Isn't this just a renewal of the policy towards Arvedui?

I think there's much more than political power's argument. The recent problem almost had Gondor destroyed, like the Wainriders invasion which killed the King and possibly utterly annihilated the top-ranked military combat units, was enough to make all the important political leaders to cross their fingers. So I think all the political heads have no such leisure. In addition, if the Gondor Congress really wanted to make Arnor subservient, they shouldn't elect Earnil so friendly to Arnor to succeed the throne.

The Gondor military operation against Angamar must be very costly and inconvenient(Ground transports obviously all deserted, otherwise Gondor shouldn't choose the naval pass)

 

[Aldarion]

The Gondor military operation against Angamar must be very costly and inconvenient(Ground transports obviously all deserted, otherwise Gondor shouldn't choose the naval pass)

Actually, naval transport is almost always preferable to ground transport, especially in premodern times - it makes logistics much easier.

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

Actually, naval transport is almost always preferable to ground transport, especially in premodern times - it makes logistics much easier.

Hmm....but what if taking "time cost" into account?We all know that naval transport loads much more content, yet are much more slower.

 

[Olorgando]

... Gondor Congress ...

Now that's got me scratching my head! 😳
Yes, the kings had their advisors, a council, something like a modern cabinet.
But for the life of me I can't recall anything in any place that even vaguely resembles a congress or parliament. 🤔

 

[Aldarion]

Hmm....but what if taking "time cost" into account?We all know that naval transport loads much more content, yet are much more slower.

Actually, they are not. Over long distances, naval transport might be much faster.

What were average travelling speeds in medieval times with different transportation means (on foot, on horseback, on a camel, with an ox ...

Answer (1 of 3): On horseback — about 5 kph, 50 km/day average travel speed for average horse and rider. That didn’t differ much from unmounted travel times. Better horses e.g. those of Arabs could cover 100+ km/day, and if there were 2+ horses per rider so they could be changed, 150 km/day was p...

www.quora.com

How far, how fast?

One of the problems that writers often encounter when they set their stories in pre-industrial worlds is the question of how long it takes to travel from place to place. If you had to ride on horseback, how long would it take you to cross an entire kingdom or a continent? Fortunately for writers,…

writemedieval.livejournal.com

Only messangers would outpace ships.

 

[Olorgando]

Hmm....but what if taking "time cost" into account?We all know that naval transport loads much more content, yet are much more slower.

Ah no! Sailing ships were always faster than heavy freight carts, whether drawn by bullocks or oxen or heavy draught horses.

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

Actually, they are not. Over long distances, naval transport might be much faster.

What were average travelling speeds in medieval times with different transportation means (on foot, on horseback, on a camel, with an ox ...

Answer (1 of 3): On horseback — about 5 kph, 50 km/day average travel speed for average horse and rider. That didn’t differ much from unmounted travel times. Better horses e.g. those of Arabs could cover 100+ km/day, and if there were 2+ horses per rider so they could be changed, 150 km/day was p...

www.quora.com

How far, how fast?

One of the problems that writers often encounter when they set their stories in pre-industrial worlds is the question of how long it takes to travel from place to place. If you had to ride on horseback, how long would it take you to cross an entire kingdom or a continent? Fortunately for writers,…

writemedieval.livejournal.com

Only messangers would outpace ships.

Ah no! Sailing ships were always faster than heavy freight carts, whether drawn by bullocks or oxen or heavy draught horses.

Oooopppssss, oh yes...ME's transport tech standard is based on Middle Age's level...no no no no no, never mind, I was just wondering why my geographic text book told me naval transport is the slowest, cause it's according to modern tech standard...SRY, NVM!!!!!!!😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

Now that's got me scratching my head! 😳
Yes, the kings had their advisors, a council, something like a modern cabinet.
But for the life of me I can't recall anything in any place that even vaguely resembles a congress or parliament. 🤔

Ehh...oh, in fact, cause Council of the Sceptre needs to type much more characters, and I thought they're the similar unit, just like Steward to Prime minister 😜 I use Congress instead...nvm, I'll use the latter one since then😓

What leaves me scratching my head is what is meant with a "vanguard". My impression from perhaps the last 100 years or a bit more of warfare would be hardly more than a scouting party, certainly nothing that could engage a serious massing of troop on the opposing side. Not something that such a "vanguard" would be expected to do, anyway. I would guess that they (the scouts) would have the job of informing the main mass of troops about where it would be of the greatest advantage to attack the enemy - or, if the enemy seemed to be at too much of an advantage, how to avoid any contact with them (I'm thinking of Ghân-buri-Ghân leading the Rohirrim, 6000 riders, past a Mordor force sent to impede them by the, by then, secret Stonewain valley … )

It's decided by "whom" they shall report, I think XD. For examples, the "Vanguard Command" will inform "Army Command" about what their scout report to it , yet the scouts might not be responsible to the whole Army Command, for the enemies won't wait for you to finish the whole procedure XD.
Of course it relies on the command system of each military factions. The major point I think is the command system. In theory, each division should got their own scout units, after all we know how terribly inconvenient for communications in Middle Ages.

Of course it's another matter if Palantir were used for Military communication XDD. I wonder if the Rangers of Gondor would use Palantirs for communications or not, after all, they're under the direct "Army Command"(Faramir) obviously XD
Yet even so, scouting parties also have various choice to report as the command system varies according to the faction. If the faction's military authorizes frontal commanders much more, scouting might almost belong to the Vanguard stuff only. All the whole Army command have to do is only making decisions according what the Vanguard report instead of receiving information from the scouts directly. XDD

Vanguard, as used historically, was supposed to be capable of engaging the enemy in battle. In fact, it was one of basic battle divisions. As I noted, Byzantine army typically deployed in five divisions on march - vanguard, left wing, right wing, center and rear guard. According to Byzantine doctrine, all these divisions were of equal strength, which is how I calculated strength of Gondor's field army at its height. Now, Western European medieval armies could be and were far more varied... but the thing is, Gondor is not based on Western European feudal societies, it is based on Byzantine Empire. Which means it is there we have to look at if we want to understand its organization, be it political or military one, just as we have to look at Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to understand Rohan.

The above, by the way, would make Dunlendings the Celts who lived in Britain (Rohan) before Anglo-Saxons (Rohirrim) arrived. Which would mean that they are related to Gondorians...

But anyway, scouting party is one thing, vanguard another. Vanguard is a battle division, scouting party is just that - scouting party, relying on stealth and speed. Army on march would be surrounded by scouts, not just ahead but to the sides and rear as well. These would, if threatened, take shelter behind the vanguard, but were not vanguard (or rear guard, or flank guard - when such was deployed) in and by themselves.

Hmmm.....could there be scouts under Vanguard command directly?🤔Cause if the scouts have to report their reconnaissance to the Army command directly, it'll cripple the Vanguard's tactical flexibility. Taking tactical flexibility into account, as a fully intact unit, each division, at least the Vanguard should have it's own scouts.
Of course it's another matter about the Rangers of Gondor, for they're obviously not only scouts but "special forces" elite enough to take part in combat alone.

 

[Aldarion]

Hmmm.....could there be scouts under Vanguard command directly?🤔Cause if the scouts have to report their reconnaissance to the Army command directly, it'll cripple the Vanguard's tactical flexibility. Taking tactical flexibility into account, as a fully intact unit, each division, at least the Vanguard should have it's own scouts.
Of course it's another matter about the Rangers of Gondor, for they're obviously not only scouts but "special forces" elite enough to take part in combat alone.

Yes, scouts would likely be under command of Vanguard, being detailed from its own forces.