# What are the 5 armies in the Hobbit?



## esrbl (Mar 29, 2020)

Elves
Dwarves
Men
Which are the 4th and the 5th armies in the Hobbit?


----------



## Aldarion (Mar 29, 2020)

1. Elves
2. Dwarves
3. Men
4. Goblins
5. Eagles

And of course, 6. Beorn, but since he is human he counts under 3rd army.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Mar 29, 2020)

The eagles are not counted as an army in that tale. The opposing forces were a Goblin and a Wolves army with whom they were in league.


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 4, 2020)

That's interesting. I've always thought that the Goblins and Wargs counted as one. Been a while since I've read the chapter, but I seem to remember the Eagles coming in very late, which would definitely count against them as the Fifth Army.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 4, 2020)

True enough, TrackerOrc (and Aldarion); me too I have been wondering why they did not count as well, given their large numbers. I "could" have a suggestion, for what it be worth. It's about what eagles do: they are ... flying.

The word "army" supposes "boots-on-the-ground": the classic "trinity" so to speak (infantry, artillery, cavalry). Referring to World War 2, no history book would refer to the Luftwaffe, the RAF or other air forces as an "army", no matter how much such forces influenced the outcome of war neither then nor now.

The eagles were flying... no boots. My reasoning ends there and it is admittedly a bit weak.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 4, 2020)

Perhaps this helps. In chapter 6 of TH, "Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire", JRRT states "The Wargs and the goblins _often_ helped one another in wicked deeds." Still very much conventional fairy-tale territory, with evil wolves having a language and forming alliances. This is not yet the Warg-rider Orcs of Isengard territory of TTT (or TH the film).


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 6, 2020)

I think what always made me believe the Goblins and Wargs to be one, ties in with Merroes' point about the Eagles not being boots-on-the-ground; although Wolves hunt in packs and obviously have some structure in that way, I don't think I ever saw them as being organised militarily - they still have a wildness about them.
Plus, I think the notion of the Orcs actually riding Wargs always had me believing that they were intrinsically bound up with the Orcs, even perhaps in a very subservient role, and not being too independent; though this may be projection backwards from the later books.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 6, 2020)

TH does run against some things JRRT had written earlier for The Sil, with wolves being specifically associated with Morgoth and Sauron, though Draugluin and his ilk were said to be werewolves, while Carcharoth, though Draugluin is said to be hi sire, appears to be more nearly a "normal" wolf, if of gigantic size and demonic ferocity.
In TTT, JRRT does not make as much of Orc Warg-riders, I seem to recall that they seemed to function more like "cavalry" scouts rather than a compact attacking force. In the film, the attack on those heading for Helm's Deep by Warg-riders (and Aragorn's spill over the edge and all that baloney) are purely a product of PJ's fantasy. Then again, those Wargs looked almost more like bears, or more properly hyenas, than proper wolves in LoTR the film. Their looks "improved" in TH - as did those of the Eagles; in RoTK the Eagles seemed to me to be overblown hawks. But that whole Warg-rider bit was also blown all out of proportion in the TH films, and never mind that Azog, main baddie of these films, has "really" been dead for 142 years, having been killed by the then young (for a Dwarf) Dáin Ironfoot at the climactic bottle of the War of the Dwarves and Orcs, The Battle of Azanulbizar before the east-gate of Moria in 2799 Third Age.

As I mentioned above, JRRT was still working the conventional fairy-tale formula here, which he was to reject quite firmly fairly soon after in his lecture "On Fairy-stories".
Besides the Wargs, the Eagles also speak, Beorn's animals can serve like waiters at the table …



Merroe said:


> ... Referring to World War 2, no history book would refer to the Luftwaffe, the RAF or other air forces as an "army", no matter how much such forces influenced the outcome of war neither then nor now.


Well, actually, what is now the USAF was called the USAAF - the second A stands for "Army" - until the end of WW II. And the US Navy and Marines retain their airborne forces as an integral part to this day.

But more importantly, the Eagle would not be called an army because they were not from the start really allied with any side (though they definitely did not like Orcs and hunted them at other times, too). The Orcs and Wargs were allies on one side, while the Dwarves decided to forego an attack on the Elves and Men beleaguering Erebor, and to join them as their far more natural allies, when faced with beyond-a-doubt enemies. The Eagles were in a way, as Treebeard said about the Ents, not really on anybody's side, as nobody was really on *their* side. They were not to be counted on, but did have a habit of taking sides on short notice, as they also did before the Black Gate, when they felt that one side was definitely the one to support against the other.


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 7, 2020)

It's funny how we can all have different interpretations of things in the books; I've always felt that the Eagles have a definite relationship with Gandalf, and would therefore definitely be on his side, so to speak. I wouldn't ever suggest that they were in any way subservient, but I've always felt that they were ready and able to help Gandalf (and obviously do just that on several occasions). Not suggesting that there was any sort of concrete alliance, but that there was a definite partnership of equals, almost?


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 7, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> I've always felt that the Eagles have a definite relationship with Gandalf, and would therefore definitely be on his side, so to speak.



Quite true. The eagles were long befriended with the Elves in previous Ages as mentioned in TS; as regards Gwaihir, a personal relationship with Gandalf is explained in Tyler's "Companion" as follows:

*Gwaihir the Windlord* – Lord of the Great Eagles of the Misty Mountains, a descendant of Thorondir. He became a friend of Gandalf the Grey when the Wizard healed him of a poisoned wound (probably caused by an orc-arrow). Several times in the closing years of the Third Age, Gwaihir repaid this debt: during the War of the Ring the Eagles, led by Gwaihir and his brother Landroval, assisted Gandalf and the Free Peoples many times.​
Actually, I searched for Tyler's information source for this but could not find it...!?


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 7, 2020)

That bit about the arrow is in TH, chapter 6 "Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire", when Gandalf, the Dwarves and Bilbo have all been brought to a "... wide shelf of rock on the mountain-side. .... The wizard and the eagle-lord [not yet named Gwaihir] appeared to know one another slightly, and even to be on friendly terms. [this would seem to be how it appeared to Bilbo? because then follows:] As a matter of fact Gandalf, who had often been in the mountains, had once rendered a service to the eagles and healed their lord from an arrow-wound."

So an arrow-wound, yes, but no mention of it being poisoned or being specifically an Orc-arrow. The eagles tended to stay clear of human settlements, being shot at there too - not without reason, as the Lord of the Eagles confessed, as the Eagles did occasionally pinch sheep from men.

Checked my copy of Tyler, and yes, he does commit the error of calling Gwaihir "a descendant of Thorond*i*r". Shame on him! He does give Thorondir correctly as the twenty-second Ruling Steward of Gondor, and immediately following is the entry on Thorondor, Messenger of Manwë and ancestor of Gwaihir.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Apr 7, 2020)

We might get a little adrift, ... but based on Olorgando's information I must somewhat correct my previous mail on the friendship between Gwaihir and Gandalf, realizing now that the eagle that was healed by Gandalf cannot have been Gwaihir (though healing _*any*_ eagle may nonetheless have secured the eagles' esteem for Gandalf).

Douglas A. Anderson argues that as follows (in "The Annotated Hobbit"): 

_Some Tolkien commentators, including Robert Foster in his Complete Guide to Middle-earth, have been tempted to equate the Lord of the Eagles in TH with Gwaihir the Windlord, the eagle who rescues Gandalf LotR. However, this cannot be the case, for in Chapter 4 of Book V of The Return of the King, "The Field of Cormallen", Gandalf says to Gwaihir: "Twice you have borne me, Gwaihir my friend." The two previous times were demonstrably Gandalf's escape from Orthanc and when Gwaihir bore Gandalf to Lorien after finding him on the peak of Zirak-zigil subsequent to his fight with the Balrog. These two instances exclude the possibility of Gwaihir being the eagle who rescued Gandalf in The Hobbit._​


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 7, 2020)

Found Gandalf's quote to Gwaihir in "Cormallen" in LoTR, but not yet Anderson's in his "Annotated Hobbit". Which might be hampered by my hardback version being a 2012 German translation (due to the imminence of "The Hobbit" films) of Anderson's 2002 second edition.
Leaving aside the not improbable hypothesis of this being a lapse by JRRT due to his overload of detail, we are talking of 78 years having elapsed between Bilbo's meeting with the eagles in 2941 TA and the post-Rivendell action in LoTR in 3019. Whatever may have been the case with Thorondor, Messenger of Manwë who gave even Morgoth some serious facial scars (after Fingolfin had already done so further south), no beings in Middle-earth besides the Elves were immortal in any sense. Of course, these great eagles may have had a life-span comparable to Dwarves, about 250 years - speculation. So Gwaihir not (no longer) being the "Lord of the Eagles" of TH makes sense beyond Gandalf's above-mentioned statement.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 7, 2020)

We know that Gwaehir and Landroval are descendants of Thorondor, and that Tolkien (in an Orc text) at least considered that Thorondor could be a Maia. Also, on a typescript to the _Annals of Aman_: "Manwe, however sent Maia spirits in eagle form to dwell near Thangorodrim . . ."
JRRT, AAm, Section 169, _Morgoth's Ring_

Granted, in the aforementioned Orc essay -- in which long-lived Orc-formed Maiar are confirmed once again -- Tolkien seems to think the idea of Gwaehir being noted as a _descendant_ of Thorondor (in _The Lord of the Rings_ of course) is problematic to Thorondor being a Maia . . .

. . . but for myself, I'm still not sure why this would be, or need to be, problematic. If Maiar adopt physical forms, as Melian, why can't they still create children . . . and eggs?

💥


----------



## Aldarion (Apr 8, 2020)

Elthir said:


> We know that Gwaehir and Landroval are descendants of Thorondor, and that Tolkien (in an Orc text) at least considered that Thorondor could be a Maia. Also, on a typescript to the _Annals of Aman_: "Manwe, however sent Maia spirits in eagle form to dwell near Thangorodrim . . ."
> JRRT, AAm, Section 169, _Morgoth's Ring_
> 
> Granted, in the aforementioned Orc essay -- in which long-lived Orc-formed Maiar are confirmed once again -- Tolkien seems to think the idea of Gwaehir being noted as a _descendant_ of Thorondor (in _The Lord of the Rings_ of course) is problematic to Thorondor being a Maia . . .
> ...



It is problematic because Maiar are immortal... so if Gwaihir is *descendant *of Thorondor, and also lord of Eagles... what happened to Thorondor? Of course, that question appears one way or the other...


----------



## Elthir (Apr 8, 2020)

Thorondor soars above Taniquetil.

Or something else . . . but I like this notion


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 9, 2020)

Well, besides Melian and Thingol, on the other end of the spectrum Ungoliant (whatever she was - deep Tom Bombadil territory) left progeny, the last possibly being Shelob. So why not Thorondor a Maia having adopted the form of a gigantic eagle?

A Hypothesis: at the change of the world at the downfall of Númenor, the Valar might have recalled all Maiar back to the now somehow "other-dimensional" Aman (& the Lonely Isle). And even for Sauron, who would not have heeded the summons as he did not at the end of the First Age, and the Moria Balrog, and whatever other incarnated Maiar remained in Middle-earth, the swifter waning (or wearing-down) that the Elves encountered may have affected the remaining Maiar similarly.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 9, 2020)

And so we have Gandalf simply misspeaking (as far as the actual count . . . let's face it, resurrection can make you forget your own phone number), just as Gimli misspoke about slaying orcs at the breaking of the fellowship.

And just as we have Elthir twisting in this thread 

I forgot about this Gwaihir the Lord of Storm


In _The Silmarillion_ (Beren and Luthien), Christopher Tolkien made an editorial change to the description of Thorondor and his vassals soaring above Morgoth’s realm, replacing a description that Thorondor was the leader of the eagles, and that his mightiest vassals were Lhandroval and Gwaihir.

CJRT explains that the change was made to avoid confusion with the passage in _The Return of the King_ describing Gwaihir and Landroval as the _“mightiest of the descendants of old Thorondor, who built his eyries in the inaccessible peaks of the Encircling Mountains when Middle-earth was young”_ But Christopher Tolkien also notes . . .

"At the time, I did not understand the nature and dating of the end of QS. It now appears that there was no reason to suppress the names: in fact, it seems that Gwaewar was changed to Gwaihir to bring it into accord with _The Lord of the Rings_ -- however this is to be interpreted." CJRT, The Lost Road, commentary to _"with_ _wings swifter than the wind_" Of Beren and Luthien

So, interpret away!


----------



## wsx04321 (Dec 30, 2020)

emilsrbl said:


> Elves
> Dwarves
> Men
> Which are the 4th and the 5th armies in the Hobbit?


4.Goblins/Orcs.
5.birds and beasts.


----------



## Aldarion (Jan 10, 2021)

Azanathel of Emyn Uial said:


> 1. Dwarves
> 2. Elves
> 3. Goblins from Gundabad. (no orcs were mentioned)
> 4. Wargs/ wolves of Ered Mithrin and the Misty Mountains
> ...


Just a note: Goblins _are_ Orcs; Orc is merely Elven for Goblin, with *Orcrist *being called the *Goblin Cleaver*. In the same way, Hobgoblins are basically Uruks (ironic, because in folklore, hobgoblins are _smaller_ than other goblins).


----------



## esrbl (Mar 29, 2020)

Elves
Dwarves
Men
Which are the 4th and the 5th armies in the Hobbit?


----------



## Elthir (Jan 11, 2021)

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_).

🐾


----------



## ZehnWaters (Jan 13, 2021)

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.


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 13, 2021)

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.


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 ...


----------



## ZehnWaters (Jan 13, 2021)

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 ...


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).


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 13, 2021)

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."


----------



## Elthir (Jan 14, 2021)

Azanathel of Emyn Uial said:


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



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.

🐾


----------



## Elthir (Jan 15, 2021)

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.



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"


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 15, 2021)

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
> ...


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."


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 16, 2021)

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).


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 16, 2021)

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. ...


"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. 😡


----------



## Elthir (Jan 17, 2021)

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!

🐾


----------

