What are the 5 armies in the Hobbit?

Orcs and goblins are exactly the same thing. Like with Quendi and "Elves" goblin is the English translation of internal orc words, including:

Sindarin orch "goblin"
Westron orc "goblin"
Black Speech uruk "goblin" -- but applied as a rule to the great soldier goblins compared to lesser kinds
(see snaga "slave", Appendix F)

The external history of this matter is wonderfully confusing. The internal answer however, published by JRRT in the Third Edition Hobbit, is not only simple enough in my opinion, but also nicely handles any possibly confusing examples left in Tolkien published accounts (I'm looking at you, The Hobbit).

🐾

I always thought it was Orcs, Wargs, Dwarves, Humans, & Elves but that's just a break-down of races. The races COULD have more than one army. We know that the dwarves received reinforcements, for instance.

ZehnWaters said:

I always thought it was Orcs, Wargs, Dwarves, Humans, & Elves but that's just a break-down of races. The races COULD have more than one army. We know that the dwarves received reinforcements, for instance.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, but that's getting into fairly recent military bureaucracy. Where the sizes of the respective units could vary widely from nation to nation.
"The Battle of the Hundred Divisions" or "The Battle of the Thousand Battalions" just doesn't have the same ring ...

Olorgando said:

Well, yes, but that's getting into fairly recent military bureaucracy. Where the sizes of the respective units could vary widely from nation to nation.
"The Battle of the Hundred Divisions" or "The Battle of the Thousand Battalions" just doesn't have the same ring ...

Click to expand...

I dunno, it does sound kinda cool. I guess it could still be considered a different army if it's from a different group or country. Rohan and Gondor are different armies (though I suppose they combine when assaulting Mordor).

We're definitely talking pure infantry (and archers) in BoFA. JRRT is vague about numbers involved, which might be superficially surprising as he was a subaltern officer with the British Army (as a generic term meaning ground forces, and "not Navy") at the Somme. But he certainly knew that the forces involved in WW I were immensely larger than anything that had gone before, in their turn to be dwarfed by WW II. Dain's Dwarf "army" can hardly have been more than a large battalion or small regiment / brigade.

But as to the identity of the five, JRRT states it unequivocally at the beginning of the second part of chapter 17 of TH, "The Clouds Burst":
"So began a battle that none had expected; and it was called the Battle of Five Armies, and it was very terrible. Upon one side were the Goblins and the wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and Dwarves."

Azanathel of Emyn Uial said:

In Canon, it says nothing of them being the same. Nor does it say they are different.

Click to expand...

The Third Edition Hobbit is canon though, in which Tolkien explains the relationship of these two words.

"(2) Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbits' form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin-kind."

Westron Orc is the underlying word in the actual language spoken in Frodo's day. It's not English, but has usually been translated in The Hobbit, and less translated in The Lord of the Rings.

To back this up, in Tolkien's guide for translators of his work, which he intended to send out to said translators, JRRT admits -- that by his own system -- Westron orc should be translated with English "goblin" . . . but here, for The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien tells any translators not to do this (that is, don't translate every instance of orc into the language of translation -- Swedish, German, French, and so on), as he rather wants to retain the word orc where it appears in this tale.

(Tolkien gives his reason there for retaining the word orc.)

Or to look at a Primary World language example, if I were to translate the German word hund with English dog, who would think that I mean a hund is different than a dog? There are different kinds of dogs of course, but with hund/dog all I've done is translate a word.

And taking a Hobbit example and plugging in Tolkien's explanation -- translate the word orc with English "goblin" or "hobgoblin" (larger kinds) and you get: . . . The slopes of the Grey Mountains, and they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and goblins of the worst description.

That's the fully English version.

The fully Westron version (the imagined original, as Bilbo did not speak English of course), would arguably have the word orc twice, and either a Westron word to denote "large goblin" -- or maybe the word orc a third time, with a Westron adjective to denote "large" or similar.

🐾

Azanathel of Emyn Uial said:

( . . . ) Post publication quotes or notes are useful, but useless when it comes to facts written in his published works. I think you mistake his published works, to Christopher's work. MOST of Tolkien's writings and lore are speculated by his Son. Never published while he was alive.

Click to expand...

The Third Edition Hobbit note I quoted was written and published by JRRT himself.

And this note agrees with other late statements regarding the two words, especially Tolkien's guide for translators, wherein Tolkien explains his system. See also Appendix F in The Return of the King, the "On Translation" section, for wider commentary from the translator.

Non-English words on the left -- English translations on the right.

orc -- "Goblin"
Eldar -- "Elves"
Balrog -- "Power-demon"
hund -- "dog"

Or one could also set it up this way: Sindarin orch -- Westron translation: orc -- English translation: "goblin"

Azanathel of Emyn Uial said:

But I forget what we started talking about in this thread about the 5 Armies of Erebor, or The Battle of Five Armies.

1. Elves (Sindarin and Moriquendi elves)
2. Men
3. Dwarves of the Line of Durin.
4. Goblins/ Orcs
5. Damn... Damn... 5 always gets you. It could be The Eagles... It could be The Gigantic Bats (Don't forget the Bats). lt could be the Wargs, but they were as small in number as the Gigantic Bats out of Gundabad.

And don't count Beorn... for he was just a Werebear. He would not be considered an army unto himself. Or would he?? lol.

Click to expand...

erm ...

Olorgando said:

But as to the identity of the five [armies], JRRT states it unequivocally at the beginning of the second part of chapter 17 of TH, "The Clouds Burst":
"So began a battle that none had expected; and it was called the Battle of Five Armies, and it was very terrible. Upon one side were the Goblins and the wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and Dwarves."

Click to expand...

Well, fairly early in the thread the point was made that - at least since WW I - a new military force had come into being which would not be called an army. Obviously, there were no navies involved in BoFA, but in modern terms the Eagles - topic of that early post - would be considered air force. By that thinking, so would the bats.

Perhaps the TH films have muddled things up about who the Five Armies are (they sure muddled up a lot more).

Azanathel of Emyn Uial said:

... I think you mistake his published works, to Christopher's work. MOST of Tolkien's writings and lore are speculated by his Son. Never published while he was alive. ...

Click to expand...

"Speculations" by Christopher Tolkien are worth a thousand times any speculations by any contributor here on TTF. Christopher's "speculations", based on massive original-source reading, are to be rated far more highly than anything written by even the most accomplished writers on JRRT like Tom Shippey or Verlyn Flieger. Perhaps only John D. Rateliff, who published "The History of the Hobbit" (originally two volumes published in 2007, 2011 in the one-volume brick I own) with Christopher's blessing, or other similar specialists, may have had knowledge of narrow parts of JRRT's legendarium to surpass Christopher's. For any of us here on TTF to even appear to look down on Christopher's writings is a massive case of arrogance. 😡

CJRT's work carries great weight of course, and he's presented us with many gifts.

I also think he's shown his measure by opening himself up to criticism. I disagree with him concerning a few points -- but considering the vast amount of information he revealed in HOME and elsewhere (including the level of detail) -- facts as well as some very informed opinions -- for me, I find his work invaluable and quite astonishing.

Christopher Tolkien is a true scholar, and as far as criticism of the constructed Silmarillion goes -- while it can now be taken up, and has been taken up -- in one sense I feel it's a no-go from the start, because I now feel this work was never intended as canon -- it simply became canon for some years, by default, being the only thing in the public domain that went into the Elder Days in detail.

Arguably CJRT has further opened up the box by criticizing himself on certain choices made for the 1977 Silmarillion. The parentage of Gil-galad is an easy example -- but again, does the choice that he made here disrupt the reader experience -- which for me is the whole point in the first place -- and if not, how could Fingon be "wrong" in this light?

And I note that CJRT never said he wished he had changed Fingon to someone else, but rather wished he had left the matter vague.

Why vague? He "now" knew what Tolkien's last known decision was here, but he also knew of other details in the constructed Silmarillion (or in the constructed Children of Hurin) that did not, in fact, represent Tolkien's last known decision. The constructions had more to deal with than simply rounding up Tolkien's latest thoughts on a given thing and pouring them in.

In my Middle-earth Gil-galad is not Fingon's son. On the other hand, when I first read the Silmarillion in 1977 I did not fall out of my chair at "son of Fingon", nor do I do so today, after reading HOME. When I'm reading the 1977 Silmarillion I'm immersed in the tale, I'm enjoying the "book experience" rather than enjoying the behind-the-scenes complexity of Tolkien's world.

That's two types of enjoyment. Thank you Christopher Tolkien!

🐾