The 🧝Elves of Mirkwood vs Rivendell

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

There's a bit more in the way of citation here:

First Siege of Imladris

The first siege of Imladris was a siege of Elrond's refuge by Sauron's forces during the War of the Elves and Sauron in the Second Age.

tolkiengateway.net

The cited references to the siege in UT can be found starting on page 238, although it's unclear to me how much of a "siege" took place, as opposed to "containment".

And much depends on whether this writing is considered canon. A matter of personal choice, I imagine.

 

[Olorgando]

There's a bit more in the way of citation here:
The cited references to the siege in UT can be found starting on page 238, although it's unclear to me how much of a "siege" took place, as opposed to "containment".
And much depends on whether this writing is considered canon. A matter of personal choice, I imagine.

Right, found it in "Unfinished Tales", "Part Two: The Second Age", IV "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn"; page 238 in my 1986 paperback reprint of the original edition, but on page 258 of my 2020 40th anniversary special edition hardcover. That's more like it.

"Now Sauron's immediate purpose was to take Lindon, where he believed he had the most chance of seizing one, or more, of the Three Rings; and he called in therefore his scattered forces and marched west towards the land of Gil-galad, ravaging as he went. But his force was weakened by the necessity of leaving a strong detachment to contain Elrond and prevent him coming down upon his rear."

a bit later, near the bottom of the page

"The army that was besieging Imladris was caught between Elrond and Gil-galad, and utterly destroyed."

Now in my opinion, that seems to be a "defensive siege", aimed at preventing Elrond from breaking out, not an offensive siege with the intent of taking Imladris. For which purpose the "detachment" was probably inadequate, given its later utter destruction. But it is still not clear, to me at least, which specific form Imladris's resistance to a siege took. No description known to me gives the impression of it being a fortress, as I mentioned above.

But then, all of this Second Age action took part over 4,700 years before the War of the Ring at the end of the Third Age. My guess is that quite a few Elves had left Middle-earth in the intervening millennia, so any forces Elrond might still have had at the end of the Third Age must have been greatly diminished - and that is what would have to be compared to Thranduil's realm of the same time in the Third Age.

 

[Melkor]

To me seems logical that if Sauron could destroy Elrond's forces, he would destroy them. This would prevent Elrond to helping Gil-Galad non the less and Sauron would have less enemies and also could concentrate all of his forces on Lindon (not mentioning that he could capture Elrond and use him as hostage).

 

[1stvermont]

Wait a minute. There is no mention of any attack on Rivendell during the War of the Ring in the Third Age. Elrond's retreat before the forces of Sauron, and the founding of Rivendell, happened during the Second Age, and the War of Sauron and the Elves (which might be called War of the Rings in plural), mainly against Celebrimbor. Don't confuse this with what Gandalf, in "Unfinished Tales", "Part Three: The Third Age", "III The Quest of Erebor" mentions as a possibility, had Smaug not been destroyed during what was recorded in "The Hobbit".

Yeah, that is what he was referring to. I was just using the WOTR as examples of failed attacks by Sauron on areas that are not typically thought of as powerhouses such as Mirkwood.

 

[Olorgando]

So maybe Sauron wasn't always perfectly logical ...

 

[1stvermont]

I just want to emphasize, that Rivendell is very well protected. Rivendell didn't fell during Sauron's siege in SA - and Sauron's army in that time was much bigger threat than Thranduil's army in TA. So it's proven, that Rivendell have pretty good defence. So, even despite Rivendell has lesser army in TA than in SA, it cannot be conquered by Thranduil's army (if you have good defence, you can hold the place even with a few soldiers).

This does assume Thranduil must attack Rivendell. Perhaps though, you are underestimating the losses suffered by the Noldor through battles and immigration west. Meanwhile, Tolkien said the elves under Thranduil multiplied during the third age. You could also be overestimating the % of Saurons forces used to besiege Elrond. Perhaps he just wanted to keep Elrond from helping his main enemies.

 

[Melkor]

So maybe Sauron wasn't always perfectly logical ...

Sauron isn't stupid. Apperently he can't destroy Elrond's forces, so he at least kept them traped far away from Lindon.

 

[1stvermont]

There's a bit more in the way of citation here:

First Siege of Imladris

The first siege of Imladris was a siege of Elrond's refuge by Sauron's forces during the War of the Elves and Sauron in the Second Age.

tolkiengateway.net

The cited references to the siege in UT can be found starting on page 238, although it's unclear to me how much of a "siege" took place, as opposed to "containment".

And much depends on whether this writing is considered canon. A matter of personal choice, I imagine.

If this article is correct it seems to support my hypothesis, that the force sent to Rivendell was more a holding force to pin him down while Sauron's more potent enemies could be dealt with.

 

[Melkor]

This does assume Thranduil must attack Rivendell. Perhaps though, you are underestimating the losses suffered by the Noldor through battles and immigration west. Meanwhile, Tolkien said the elves under Thranduil multiplied during the third age. You could also be overestimating the % of Saurons forces used to besiege Elrond. Perhaps he just wanted to keep Elrond from helping his main enemies.

Again, if Sauron could destroy Elrond, he would do that.

And if Elrond didn't have force to defeat Thranduil, why would he go to open battle? He would have better chance in well protected place.

 

[1stvermont]

Right, found it in "Unfinished Tales", "Part Two: The Second Age", IV "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn"; page 238 in my 1986 paperback reprint of the original edition, but on page 258 of my 2020 40th anniversary special edition hardcover. That's more like it.

"Now Sauron's immediate purpose was to take Lindon, where he believed he had the most chance of seizing one, or more, of the Three Rings; and he called in therefore his scattered forces and marched west towards the land of Gil-galad, ravaging as he went. But his force was weakened by the necessity of leaving a strong detachment to contain Elrond and prevent him coming down upon his rear."

a bit later, near the bottom of the page

"The army that was besieging Imladris was caught between Elrond and Gil-galad, and utterly destroyed."

Now in my opinion, that seems to be a "defensive siege", aimed at preventing Elrond from breaking out, not an offensive siege with the intent of taking Imladris. For which purpose the "detachment" was probably inadequate, given its later utter destruction. But it is still not clear, to me at least, which specific form Imladris's resistance to a siege took. No description known to me gives the impression of it being a fortress, as I mentioned above.

But then, all of this Second Age action took part over 4,700 years before the War of the Ring at the end of the Third Age. My guess is that quite a few Elves had left Middle-earth in the intervening millennia, so any forces Elrond might still have had at the end of the Third Age must have been greatly diminished - and that is what would have to be compared to Thranduil's realm of the same time in the Third Age.

As I just told SES it seems to support my hypothesis that the force sent to Rivendell was more a holding force to pin him down while Sauron's more potent enemies could be dealt with. You said it was in inadequate, but I don't think that is the case. Sauron seems to have planned on wiping out all of Eriador and likely tracking back after to finish off Moria/Elrond. Had Gil-galad not shown up I don't see why Elrond could have broken out on his own.

I was just thinking, besides Elrond and his sons, and we could say Glorfiendel, Rivendell really took no action during TWOTR. I am surprised more did not join the dunadain and Aragorn. perhaps they really were pretty weak at the time of TWOTR.

 

[1stvermont]

To me seems logical that if Sauron could destroy Elrond's forces, he would destroy them. This would prevent Elrond to helping Gil-Galad non the less and Sauron would have less enemies and also could concentrate all of his forces on Lindon (not mentioning that he could capture Elrond and use him as hostage).

I think he was more concerned with retrieving the rings, Moria, and all of Eriador instead of a section of elves that went into hiding. I think he was doing just what you suggest but thought Elrond less of a worry and more easily manageable by breaking off a section of his army to focus on others.

 

[1stvermont]

Sauron isn't stupid. Apperently he can't destroy Elrond's forces, so he at least kept them traped far away from Lindon.

Once more you are assuming his primary focus must have been to destroy Elrond, Tolkien never tells us that. He says the rings and Eriador rather than a newly created hidden refuge are his focus. Had Elrond been his focus he would have assaulted with all his might.

I agree Sauron is not stupid, but remember Gandalf called him a wise fool. His quest for power tended to overtake his military decisions to his own harm at times. Including his obsession with rings.

 

[1stvermont]

Again, if Sauron could destroy Elrond, he would do that.

And if Elrond didn't have force to defeat Thranduil, why would he go to open battle? He would have better chance in well protected place.

I was mentioning the changes between second age and third is perhaps greater than you are taking into account.

For you to make the argument that Sauron could not destroy Rivendell you would have to show it was his primary goal and he attempted with all he had. But all indicators is this is not the case. He wanted Eridor and the rings not a newly created refuge of retreating elves. I doubt Sauron's new Elrond had a ring at this point and in fact, I don't think Elrond did get his ring until after.

If that is the case that Rivendell remains hidden and won't fight in open battle, then at best they could achieve a draw and not victory.


Now I think we are going to disagree on the power of Rivendell in the second age. But since we are comparing at the time of WOTR what really did Rivendell offer other than Elrond's two sons, Glorfindel for a bit, and the wisdom of Elrond? It seems they lacked fighting power or at least the willingness to help. I think their minds were West by that point.

 

[1stvermont]

So maybe Sauron wasn't always perfectly logical ...

He was, Gandalf tells us, a "wise fool"

I like to consider myself the first but all to often its the second

 

[Gandalf Olorien]

I think the Elves of Rivendell because they have been around longer. They also have Elrond, who has a ring of power.

 

[1stvermont]

I think the Elves of Rivendell because they have been around longer. They also have Elrond, who has a ring of power.

But they also leave sooner. Mirkwood stayed into the 4th age while Rivendell was abandoned.

 

[Elmoth]

Mirkwood is a realm
imladris is a very strong fortress, but only a fortress.

So I vote Mirkwood.

 

[ZehnWaters]

Mirkwood has a larger population. Rivendell has more advanced technology (as was both of their wonts; Rivendell desired to be more educated and Mirkwood desired to be more "rustic").

 

[LadyGaladriel1980]

i vote Imladris, because in Mirkwood already is Saurons Shadow, and there are a lot of evil creatures like this big black spiders. Thranduil and his elves had not the power to keep Saurons shadow fully away from Mirkwood, so i choose Rivendell, because there Saurons dark power could not come in.