I need to know more about "Drilled/Undrilled," please

[MatthewB]

Hello...

I am trying to understand better how some troops get labelled as drilled, and others as undrilled.

The rules talk about Drilled being where we have surviving manuals on how troops maneuvered and fought.

But I could really use a little more background on the theory behind this, please.

Matthew bailey

[ShrubMiK]

Ultimately it's a judgement made by whoever compiles a particular army list, taking into account a number of factors. Exactyl the same sort of process as decides whether they are classified as armoured, or superior, or have a particular weapon capability.

What are you actually trying to achieve?

[grahambriggs]

As a list writer I used a few rough criteria for drilled vs undrilled:

Is there evidence on significant controlled manouvre on the battlefield?
Is there evidence of a military training structure, formal grades and promotion through the ranks or communal training?
Do they try and attack in a structured way, rather than a wild rush?

These could suggest 'drilled' would be appropriate

Alternatively, for undrilled (other than just lack of the above):

Have they a tribal command structure?
Is there evidence of an individualistic approach to combat?
Is there a lack of formality (e.g. no uniforms, or formal unit sizes, etc)

The above can all give a feel for whether troops should be drilled or not. Sometimes it's very difficult to tell. For example, the Olmec and West Mexican lists are mostly derived from archaeology, so we don't really know.

Having looked at all the above, there's an element of whether the overall balance feels right. So, for example, it was fairly clear that the Aztecs are drilled (banner and drum command signals, military cschools, formal promotion system, nimble manouver on the battlefiled, formal flower wars to help keep the troops sharp, uniforms, etc) but that some of the more remote city states that they had hegemony over had not necessaily fulled adopted the Axtec system yet so some could be undrilled (possibly Huaxtecs for example).

[MatthewB]

Thanks... The comments about the Aztecs have been most helpful.

The question has more to do with creating Fantasy Lists for Arthurian Legends, Hyboria and Middle-earth lists than it does for Historic Lists. Although the "Arthurian Legends" is something of a quasi-historical nature. All three could be said to be quasi-historical for that matter (Middle-earth being very much akin to Anglo-Saxon and Arthurian Legends as well, and Hyboria just outright steals cultures and patches them together).

I'm trying to sort out things like "Would Arthur's Knights be Drilled or Undrilled?" or "Would Saruman's Uruk-Hai (or "Man-Orcs"*) be considered Drilled or Undrilled?" and so on.

For instance (regarding Saruman's Uruk-Hai). Many of them did seem to follow orders, and during the run back to Orthanc after the battle at Amon-Hen, the Fighting Uruk-Hai kept insisting that they had orders they had to follow, and kept up a very disciplined run, which they only had to interrupt because of the complaints of the Mordor Orcs that had joined them along the way.

I cannot really say anything intelligent about the Arthurian Stuff yet, as I am still (re)Reading La Morte D'Arthur and other sources that deal with the Arthurian Legend (and trying to decide if I want to go with the High-Medeival imagery, or the Dark-Ages imagery).

* The "Man-Orcs" might not be the "Half-Orcs" that many thought were created by Saruman. There is a great debate about whether it was just referring to the Uruk-Hai bred by Saruman, who seem to be qualitatively different from Mordor Uruk-Hai (Christopher Tolkien makes a small comment on this in The History of Middle-earth, vol X: Morgoth's Ring). And then there is the question of the Boldoeg, which were a different type of Orc altogether that Tolkien describes in his essay on Orcs, but they are more of a First Age thing, and few remained by the time of the Third Age.

[philqw78]

Well then its just about what you think would fit best. Drilled troops are easier to manouver and better at oeying orders.

IMO,
Round table drilled.
Orc undrilled
Gondor drilled
Rohan undrilled.

[MatthewB]

I've been thinking that Rohan would have a combination of Drilled/Undrilled.

The Éoreds (especially the Royal Guard) of the Marshalls would seem to be Drilled, but they represent only about 3,000 (tops) of the Riddermark's possible troops. But the remaining 4,000 - 9,000 troops would probably be Undrilled.

And, yes... Most Orcs would be undrilled. The only ones that give me pause are the Uruk-Hai of Saruman (and even then, not all of them).

MB

[ShrubMiK]

I would say that Uruk-Hai should be drilled. They seem to have existed pretty much for the purpose of fighting - "we are the fighting Urak-Hai!" - and as you say they seem to have been quite hot on following their orders very closely.

Re. Rohan, IIRC there is quite a bit of useful information about them in Unfinished Tales...including their origins, their migration southwards, military organisation in their new domain, and some fairly detailed accounts of the battles of the Fords of Isen prior to our heroes arriving on the scene in the middle section of LOTR. I would have thought irregular too. There's a whole series of characters introduced who don't do what they are told - Eomer when we first meet him, Hama not following instructions when letting Gandalf in the door, Eowyn going to battle, and at the Fords of Isen there was something of a disagreement between two commanders which led to a compromise deployment with bad results. Doing your own thing seems to be a part of their national character.

[MatthewB]

I would say that Uruk-Hai should be drilled. They seem to have existed pretty much for the purpose of fighting - "we are the fighting Urak-Hai!" - and as you say they seem to have been quite hot on following their orders very closely.

Re. Rohan, IIRC there is quite a bit of useful information about them in Unfinished Tales...including their origins, their migration southwards, military organisation in their new domain, and some fairly detailed accounts of the battles of the Fords of Isen prior to our heroes arriving on the scene in the middle section of LOTR. I would have thought irregular too. There's a whole series of characters introduced who don't do what they are told - Eomer when we first meet him, Hama not following instructions when letting Gandalf in the door, Eowyn going to battle, and at the Fords of Isen there was something of a disagreement between two commanders which led to a compromise deployment with bad results. Doing your own thing seems to be a part of their national character.

Yes, I am very familiar with The Unfinished Tales of Middle-earth & Númenóre, and with the character of the leaders. But this reflects more of a command problem with the leaders than with the troops. The same book also mentions the structure of the Rohirrim in terms of the standing army ( the Éoreds) and the remainder of the "Ride of the Riddermark."

Each Marshall of the Mark (of which there are Three) has three Éoreds of 300 to 600 mounted men under their command, who are on better mounts, who are supposed to be under arms at all times, and who receive some training and Drill. The King's Éoreds are supposed to be one Éored of 1800 men (The Royal Gurd) with an additional two Éoreds of normal size.

I would think at the very least that this Éored would be drilled, along with the personal guard Éored of each Marshall of the Riddermark.... But the normal troops as I have said are certainly Undrilled.

As for Saruman's Uruk-Hai... One thing made me think about this distinction:

What are the differences between Drilled and Undrilled Medium Foot?

Most of the core of the Fighting Uruk-Hai would be drilled (the Swordsmen & Axemen, and any spearman/Pike who might be Uruks as well). There are significant arguments about whether any of the Uruk-Hai were armed with long-spear or pike after the Fords of Isen battles (or Uruk-Hai armed with spear/pike before those battles, yet who didn't make it to the fords in time to fight alongside the Dunlending Pikemen).

The only Uruks of Saruman's whom I am wondering about are the loose formation troops who were used as scouts or ambushes. Tolkien wrote quite a bit about Saruman's betrayal that didn't make it into print, and he disclosed that Saruman's had been experimenting with breeding Orcs for several generations before he revealed that he had fallen under the shadow (Tolkien did reveal in Morgoth's Ring that Orcs breed like humans - by having sex - but they mature very quickly. It would have taken Saruman's several generations of breeding to produce his specific breed of Uruk-Hai, who were superior to Sauron's, and Saruman had 10,000 of these Uruk-Hai for his failed Assault on Rohan). So some of the Uruk-Hai produced by Saruman would have been "better" than others, and possibly having an attitude that was not as disciplined as the "Fighting Uruk-Hai."

I need to start re-reading the Conan books and graphic novels to see what the various armies of Hyboria would be. I recall that one of them is very much like the Late-Imperial Romans (I want to say Aquilonian), and that the Cimmerians are very much like Picts, Guals, or Germans from the same period (100 - 400CE). And the other armies are also created from Templates of historical nations of different Dark-Ages to Medieval periods (barring a few specialty troops).

On the purely Historical side of the Drilled/Undrilled spectrum...

Why aren't any of the East-Asian Elephants allowed to be Drilled?

I don't know a lot about their use in armies, but my sister has worked with Asian elephants a lot, and has reported that they are very disciplined and well-trained, responding much more quickly and precisely to their trainers. The trainers themselves report that they are using the same methods passed down for 1,000 years, from trainers who trained the elephants for war.

I know that even with that level of training that elephants could still freak out and become dangerous to both friend and foe alike. But the Asian elephants had many, many generations of breeding specifically for their ability to follow commands and remain calm while their mahouts or other familiar trainers were with them.

I would think that would make some difference to their African and Earlier counterparts.

MB

[philqw78]

Why aren't any of the East-Asian Elephants allowed to be Drilled?

And why are all elephants treated the same when at different times and in different places in different armies they had different uses.

[ShrubMiK]

Because elephants are not allowed to be drilled, full stop. Them's simply the rules.

It's a mistake to think too much about what individuals can do, elephants or horses or indeed humans. What the game is trying to model is how manoevrable a large clump of these things is. Humans knowing drill allows them to turn en masse and retain their order, humans without drill respond more slowly, more raggedly, and may take a while to sort themselves out afterwards. Individually, I don't think you would argue that a human is likely to be any less responsive to commands than an elephant, or any less capable of turning their body 90 degrees or 180 degrees in rapid time. Put them in a clump and it is a slightly different problem. More so, I would suggest, for elephants.

Historical accounts of large bodies of elephants undertaking complex manouevers in a battle situation might be a good argument for changing the rules, if such exist?

Re. Rohan I know that's commanders I'm talking about, but my contention is that drilled/undrilled is also a representation of how the unit responds to instructions or acts on its own initiative - and that comes from the officers. Undrilled troops are more likely to do what the overall commander asks quite so quickly - they may not be disagreeing outright, but they might require the orders to be justified more before the act on them. They are more likely to charge without orders.

Or looking at it from another angle - I think it is fairly clear that the Rohirrim are modelled on a northern-European originating "noble warrior" type of society. Think Goths, Vikings, or Normans, not Romans or Greeks. Their historical prototypes would be undrilled in game terms. That's not to say that the fantasy equivalent can't be different, especially for their elite, standing army. But you don't need to assume that just because a force is permanently embodied that it should automatically be treated as drilled. Especially cavalry, for whom the drilled/undrilled distinction is less of a big deal that for the line-of-battle foot. Undrilled feels more like the flavour of the Rohirrim, as I've always imagined them at least.

[MatthewB]

Yes... Tolkien says in The Letters of JRR Tolkien that the Rohirrim are Modeled after the Pre-Migration Goths (before they crossed the Danube and moved into Italy).

But he also contradicts this in The History of Middle-earth: The Peoples of Middle-earth by comparing them to Ostrogoths.

And, because I have been studying the Nomadic Horse tribes type guys from 400 - 800AD, the Goths being one of them, they all seem to be very similar in their "Superior/Average, Armored/Protected, Undrilled, Cavalry - Lancer, Swordsmen" types; with a few Foot (usually MF Archers, with Swordsmen capability).

And I understand the comparisons, but they tend to depart from the Goths, in that their ancestors were the migrants. Moving across Rhovanion until the Wainrider invasion of 1850TA, when the Northmen (explicitly Goth, as all of the names and places were given Gothic Names by Tolkien) were either enslaved by the Wainriders (and later Balchoth), or they migrated to the Vales of the Anduin (Such as Frumgar leading the Éothed to the Northern Vales of the Anduin at the Confluence of the Langwell and Greylin rivers, which combined with the Eithel Anduin - the Anduin's source - to make the lower Anduin a much larger river... but back to the point).

There is an evolution of the Éotheod after their settlement on Calenardhon that made them more "civilized" than they had been in the Northern parts of Western Rhovanion. They sent much of their nobility and upper-classes to be educated in Gondor, and to serve in the armies of Gondor for a time as well (Éomer, Gamling, Hama, and Erkenbrand all did this when they were younger, as well as Théoden, his father, and many other of the named Rohirrim). This would have included many of the men who would serve in the standing army of the Éorlingas/Rohirrim (their standing army being the 3,000 men of the 9 Éoreds - 3 in each March/Mark of Rohan). That amounts to 4 to 8 bases each for 3 of the commanders in an army (basically, one for each March of the Riddermark, and only the King's Mark having 2 BGs of 4 bases. The other two marks would have 1 BG each of 4 to 6 bases of drilled Troops as their 3 Éoreds).

These 3 to 4 BGs would represent the "evolution" of the Rohirrim from their earlier nomadic existence, and emphasize their connection to Gondor, where these men would have spent most of their youth, and served in the armies of Gondor as Light Horse, or Cavalry to supplement the Chivalry of Gondor, which by the time of the Settlement of Calenardhon by the Éotheod, had been quite diminished by foolish kings and the Plague of the 17th century (≈1650). And the Éoreds are depicted in a few places as acting quite quickly upon orders, and not charging impetuously.

An exception to this would be Théoden's rash charge at the Haradrim Chieftain, who had the Red, Black, & Gold snake banner. In this case, we saw several of his commanders trying to hold him back. And at Helm's Deep, Théoden managed to restrain the troops from pursuing the Uruk-Hai into the grove of Hourns that had marched to cover the exit from the valley leading out of the Deeping Comb. These troops were mostly his personal guard though, combined with a few of Éomer's troops and two of Erkenbrand's Éoreds.

I'll have to get the Untold Tales out this evening, and the History of Middle-earth that deals with Tolkien's writing about Saruman and the Rohirrim to see what all comes up regarding the Éoreds for each March/Mark, and the personal Éored of each Marshall (one of the three Éoreds of each March was the personal Éored of the Marshall, and was a bit larger than the normal Éoreds: 500 - 600 men instead of 300 - 500).

But the rest of the Rohirrim, while they did spend most of their life on horseback, were not trained much as units, and were still very tribal in nature, given to loyalty more to the local marshall or household heads than to the crown's officers. And they were much less well equipped than the Éoreds, (which were probably Superior/Average, Armored, Drilled, Cavalry - Lance, Swordsmen), the rank-file probably being Average/Poor, Protected, Undrilled, Cavalry - Light Spear/Lance, Swordsmen, which is pretty much identical to the Goths, Gepids, Vandals, etc.

And... I guess I get the thing about elephants. I've read several threads now about elephants, and I see the discussion about Eastern Elephants gets passions raised about the issue. And games have to make themselves playable, and we do not yet have the technology to get as detailed as possible in a game (give it another 5 years, and I am sure that technologies like Smart-Phones and Tablet computers will see the capability of adding very complex and technical specifications to miniature rules). But for the time being, I guess someone had to make a call, and they went with "All Elephants are the same."

Most of my questions about drill had more to do with the Uruk-Hai than anyone else... And it looks like it is a kind of coin toss.

I'll need to look up what the differences between Drilled and Undrilled MF are when looking at Maneuver and different terrain types to really get a feel for how many (or any) of them would be "Drilled" versus "Undrilled."

MB

[ShrubMiK]

Interesting point about pre-migration Goths vs. "Ostrogoths" - I don't think I've seen that before but it seems to make sense to me. Pre-Rohan equates to pre-migration Goths. In-Rohan equates to some faction of the goths after some amount of migration - the history of the Rohirrim being somewhat simpler than that of the real-world Goths.

So...the Greuthungi seem like good candidates (although we must remember that scholarship on the history of the goths has changed considerably since Tolkien's day). i.e. in Roman terms a "barbarian" kingdom. Not meaning completely backward, but a relatively simple political structure and economy.

Fast forward through some unknown number of splits and migrations and we find them settling down instead in Italy, at the request of the East Roman Emperor, at which point they start looking much less like a "barbarian" state. Reading and writing is on the rise. A more formal Christianity is established. Government is more sophisticated. The economy is more diverse. A number of prominent high-ranking Gothic officers have served either in the Roman army, or operated in close conjunction with them over a period of 100 years or more - we have less recorded history I think pertaining to the Gothic faction(s) that coalesced into the Ostrogoths than for the Visigoths, but I would expect similar patterns apply.

And yet although the make-up of the "Italian Ostrogoth" army has changed significantly compared to the earlier version, it's still rated as entirely undrilled.

I think a key theme in Tolkien's mind was the contrast between the Rohirrim and Gondor, and more than just that the army of Rohan had a higher proportion of cavalry to that of Gondor.

[eldiablito]

It is very clear that most of you have a greater base of knowledge than I. That said, I was under the impression that the end of the third era of Rohan was supposed to have a Norse/Norman influence and Gondor was somewhat like the Byzantines. I am not just pulling this idea out of my arse either. For all the faults of the film, Peter Jackson and his writers did say much the same thing (It's been a while, but I'm almost certain). When I was reading the several books of Middle Earth, I was pleasantly surprised when the interviews came out how these film writers/directors were staying so true to the primary sources. Now before you start to groan, most of their choices to diverge from the books were intentionally done to make a compact story for film (and they STILL were forced into 3 hour films).

Historically, both civilizations are from the same era and technology. Rohan/Normans also had plenty of contact with Gondor/Byzantium (both competitively and cooperatively). From the main novels, it smacks of the same feel to me. This also makes Rohan cavalry (undrilled, armoured, lancer cavalry and knights) different contemporaries from Gondor (drilled cataphracts).

For all this said, much of this thread feels as if it should be moved to the fantasy section of FoG. Why, oh why is this discussion on the Ancient/Medieval sections?!?

[MatthewB]

Interesting point about pre-migration Goths vs. "Ostrogoths" - I don't think I've seen that before but it seems to make sense to me. Pre-Rohan equates to pre-migration Goths. In-Rohan equates to some faction of the goths after some amount of migration - the history of the Rohirrim being somewhat simpler than that of the real-world Goths.

So...the Greuthungi seem like good candidates (although we must remember that scholarship on the history of the goths has changed considerably since Tolkien's day). i.e. in Roman terms a "barbarian" kingdom. Not meaning completely backward, but a relatively simple political structure and economy.

Fast forward through some unknown number of splits and migrations and we find them settling down instead in Italy, at the request of the East Roman Emperor, at which point they start looking much less like a "barbarian" state. Reading and writing is on the rise. A more formal Christianity is established. Government is more sophisticated. The economy is more diverse. A number of prominent high-ranking Gothic officers have served either in the Roman army, or operated in close conjunction with them over a period of 100 years or more - we have less recorded history I think pertaining to the Gothic faction(s) that coalesced into the Ostrogoths than for the Visigoths, but I would expect similar patterns apply.

And yet although the make-up of the "Italian Ostrogoth" army has changed significantly compared to the earlier version, it's still rated as entirely undrilled.

I think a key theme in Tolkien's mind was the contrast between the Rohirrim and Gondor, and more than just that the army of Rohan had a higher proportion of cavalry to that of Gondor.

I have already looked at the fact that the Ostogoths have an all Undrilled Army.

But the Ostrogoths ruled Italy for only about 100 years (488 - 568, when the Lombards conquered most of Italy).

But the relationship with Gondor between the Forod-Rhovanians (Northmen of Rhovanion - although Tolkien also called them Rhovani and Rhovanil as well) and the Gondorians extended to 3000 years (or more), with the direct relationship between the Rohirrim and Gondor lasting 500 years.

An Early Rohirrim Army (when the Éotheod had been much less in contact with Gondor for some time - i.e. between the Wainrider Invasion of 1850, when most of the Rhovanians migrated to the Vales of the Anduin to the Balchoth invasion of Gondor in 2509 when Cirion sent a request to Éorl the Young, Chieftain of the people who would become known as the Éorlingas.... Which resulted in the gift of North-Western Gondor - Calenardhon - to the Éorlingas to become Rohan) would most certainly be all Undrilled.

But the Rohirrim and Gondorians had a very tight relationship in the 500 years from 2510 (when the gift was formalized by a pact between Éorl and the Steward Cirion over the Grave of Elendil on Mt Halifrien) to 3019, when the War of the Rings took place.

The Rohirrim had been sending larger and larger numbers of troops to Rohan for Military Service, Training, and general Education (as we saw with the Ostrogoths) in those 500 years.

Had the Ostrogoths had a similarly stable situation, it is not likely that they would have remained a nation with an entirely undrilled army.

In looking at it in this light, I would expect that much more of their army would be Drilled by the time of Théoden's Ride to the rescue of Gondor at the Pelennor Fields.

And, this also calls into question the armies of the Northmen of Rhovanion who were essentially a principality of Gondor prior to the Wainrider invasion of 1850.

For instance, Gondor had been sending ambassadors to the largest Kingdom of Northmen in Rhovanion since after the Last Alliance. And in the 13th century, the Gondorian King Narmacil's regent Minardil (Romendacil II) sent his son Valdacar to the Rhovanian King Vidugavia. Vadacar married the daughter of Vidugavia, Vidumavi, and their son, Vinitharya/Eldacar, would rule over both the Northmen and Gondor (which caused the Kin-Strife of
1432, when Castamir, the Nephew of Minalcar usurped the Throne because Eldacar was not of "pure" Dúnedain blood).

But one could make the argument that the Northmen of Rhovanion (at least those of the largest Kingdom of Rhovanion, which Gondor supported very generously as a bulwark against the Easterlings) would have a contingent of drilled troops (either native Rhovanians who had been trained in/by Gondor, or Gondorian troops stationed in Rhovanion) as well, up to the period of the Wainrider invasion.

It was never more than a collection of notes, but Tolkien had been trying to write a story about the Northmen of Rhovanion and their relationship to Gondor surrounding the period of the conquest of Rhovanion by the Wainriders, and the betrayal of the Northmen by many of their own tribes, who felt that Gondor had abandoned them to the Easterlings. This was supposed to set into context the relationship of Frumgar's people, later called the Éorlingas, with Gondor, and why they so passionately came to the defense of Gondor. The Kingdom of Dale was also a collection of Northmen who had settled near the Silvan Elves of Greenwood/Mirkwood, and who also were passionate allies of Gondor, but were much more cut off from Gondor than were the Éorlingas, due to the large numbers of Easterling tribes who had settled in Western Rhovanion.... But anyway...

I think that the progression of the Northmen of Rhovanion goes through a process of (as explained above):

All-Undrilled (post - Last Alliance to around 1000 Third Age)
One to two BGs of Drilled (1000 - 1850, at the invasion of the Wainriders)
All Undrilled (1850 - ≈2750, from between the migration to the vales of N. Anduin to after the settlement of Rohan, and several hundred years of exchange between the two kingdoms)
Drilled Éoreds (from ≈2750 - 3019)

MB

[MatthewB]

It is very clear that most of you have a greater base of knowledge than I. That said, I was under the impression that the end of the third era of Rohan was supposed to have a Norse/Norman influence and Gondor was somewhat like the Byzantines. I am not just pulling this idea out of my arse either. For all the faults of the film, Peter Jackson and his writers did say much the same thing (It's been a while, but I'm almost certain). When I was reading the several books of Middle Earth, I was pleasantly surprised when the interviews came out how these film writers/directors were staying so true to the primary sources. Now before you start to groan, most of their choices to diverge from the books were intentionally done to make a compact story for film (and they STILL were forced into 3 hour films).

Historically, both civilizations are from the same era and technology. Rohan/Normans also had plenty of contact with Gondor/Byzantium (both competitively and cooperatively). From the main novels, it smacks of the same feel to me. This also makes Rohan cavalry (undrilled, armoured, lancer cavalry and knights) different contemporaries from Gondor (drilled cataphracts).

For all this said, much of this thread feels as if it should be moved to the fantasy section of FoG. Why, oh why is this discussion on the Ancient/Medieval sections?!?

The idea that they are like the Normans or Norse is something that has been floated by a few people based upon their own biases. Tolkien never uses the word "Norman" or "Norse" to describe the Rohirrim.

The reason that the connection between Normans and Rohirrim exists is because of an artist who depicts them in this way, and that both the Normans and the Rohirrim are a nearly completely mounted army.

But Tolkien explicitly compares them to the Goths and Ostrogoths in The Letters of JRR Tolkien and in The History of Middle-earth, vol XII : The Peoples of Middle-earth.

Tolkien also compares Gondor to several societies: Egyptian, Byzantine, Roman (both ancient and Holy Roman), and Feudal Europe. But only the Egyptian and Byzantine references are a direct analogue between the whole societies as a comparison. The comparisons of Roman (both Ancient and Holy) and Feudal Europe are only to specific aspects of Gondor's society and culture.

This makes it rather difficult to create an army list for Gondor.

But, in the context of this thread, Gondor's army is rather easy to deal with in terms of Drilled/Undrilled.

Gondor has some standing units that would be drilled, and they are Spearmen, backed up by Bowmen (as Byzantine Skutatoi would be), and some regular Cavalry (in the Earlier Gondor Society, these would be professional units). In the Later Gondor Society, they would be knights that would be a combination of professional Drilled units, and Undrilled Chivalry, representing the Nobility and other Landed men. Much of these change in Gondor's army took place during and after the Kin-Strife in the 15th century (roughly 1432 - 1500 TA).

It is also possible that Gondor could have had Cataphracts as well, in its earlier History. Tolkien doesn't comment directly on this, but in other discussions of Gondor, where he makes reference to Byzantine, he states that Gondor had a drift from a more centralized to decentralized Government as Feudal elements gained more power. His comparison is from a more Byzantine model to a more Feudal European model.

One could infer that the army also reflected these transitions as well, with professional cavalry units slowly being taken over by units of Knights (note: I am not using FoG terminology here, as on table BGs might not map 1:1 with the "units" of the army of Gondor).

So, Gondor goes from having a much more organized and trained army at the beginning of the Third Age, to having an army that consists of more undrilled troops from the Fiefs in the mid to later Third Age.

In terms of BGs and Troop types, this means that the later Gondorian Army is going to have a much larger variety of small units than the Earlier Gondorian Army.

The way that I have interpreted this is to have an Earlier Army that is built around a core of Númenórean styled infantry (heavy foot, Defensive Spearmen backed by a rank LF archers) And this is supported by a smaller number of Cataphracts and Cavalry (usually front rank Lance, Swordsmen, rear rank Bow, Swordsmen). And the army would have a number of Light Horse and Light Foot.

And as the relationship with Rhovanion grows, you get Foederate troops added to the army, to provide more cavalry (which was something the Númenóreans were short-of, and which the Northmen of Rhovanion had large numbers of (and these people also took the special horses the Númenóreans did have, and bred them to produce the Mearas).

And as the Númenórean/Dúnedain population of Gondor shrank, you would have increasing diversity, and a growing emphasis upon the nobles, who would tend to be a combination of Drilled and Undrilled, depending upon the attitudes of the particular group of Nobles.

MB

[MatthewB]

Oh, and it's in the "Ancient/Medieval" section because it has to do with how the terms "Drilled" and "Undrilled" relate to each other, and how the theory behind them works.

That is the case regardless of to what it is applied.

[philqw78]

The question started on a rules point/explanation bit is now purely LotR. For which there is a forum.

[eldiablito]

Thank you,

...and now I understand the entire Goth/Ostrogoth starting point...

Carry on!

[ShrubMiK]

C'mon Phil don't be a grumpy puss...This is probably less fantasy than many of the armies that people routinely field in standard FoG:AM

>But the Ostrogoths ruled Italy for only about 100 years....the direct relationship between the Rohirrim and Gondor lasting 500 years.

True, I had forgotten the timescales. That is plenty of time for significant changes to have taken place.

However I would also note that in some ways time seems to move more slowly in Middle Earth. Roughly speaking the first serious use of military technology was pretty much year 1 of the first age, as the Noldor arrived back in Middle Earth with weapons they had forged towards the end of their time in Valinor. There seem to have been some improvements in smithing etc. during the first age, and the making of small items of personal jewellery during the second , but aside from that not much seems to have changed in equipment of tactics, or the types of states that support the armies using them, along the way - so 7,500 years or thereabouts of a world that feels roughly equivalent to something like 500-1500AD in our world.

[philqw78]

C'mon Phil don't be a grumpy puss...This is probably less fantasy than many of the armies that people routinely field in standard FoG:AM

Fair point. You have obviously seen my Mochica figures.