# How Powerful Was Ar-Pharazon's Numenor



## Aldarion (Apr 1, 2020)

A little thought exercise I had:








How Powerful Was Ar-Pharazon’s Numenor?


Population growth Maximum theoretical population This is the maximum population that island of Numenor could support with its resources. Land area of Numenor is some 167 961 square miles, or 435 01…




militaryfantasy.home.blog


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 1, 2020)

Interesting, without a doubt.
But Ar-Pharazôn's Númenor forces were not just "hopping over the channel" as in the Normandy invasion of 1944. That would have been the US launching an attack on Normandy from its east coast. Nearly impossible in 1944, and never mind at the end of the Second Age ...
As Númenor was still tiny compared to the "Eurasian" dominion of Sauron, I still scratch my head as to how Ar-Pharazôn's forces could have daunted Sauron's - except for the fact that collecting large forces from far away (east / south) had some serious logistical issues. But that seems to me still to be a seriously smaller problem than crossing the odd thousand mile of open water ...


----------



## Aldarion (Apr 2, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Interesting, without a doubt.
> But Ar-Pharazôn's Númenor forces were not just "hopping over the channel" as in the Normandy invasion of 1944. That would have been the US launching an attack on Normandy from its east coast. Nearly impossible in 1944, and never mind at the end of the Second Age ...
> As Númenor was still tiny compared to the "Eurasian" dominion of Sauron, I still scratch my head as to how Ar-Pharazôn's forces could have daunted Sauron's - except for the fact that collecting large forces from far away (east / south) had some serious logistical issues. But that seems to me still to be a seriously smaller problem than crossing the odd thousand mile of open water ...



Actually, you have it inverted. Advances in technology actually reduce advantage of water transport. As long as you are using animals for supply train, transporting supplies over water is some 10 - 20 times more efficient than doing so over land (even today, ocean freight is some 3 times as energy-efficient as railroad, the next most efficient system, despite modern ocean freight being _less_ energy efficient than wind-propulsion transport ships of middle ages). So unless army is living off the land - which is generally possible only for armies smaller than 10 000 - 20 000 men, I think, depending on the terrain - it is much easier to supply a seaborne or amphibious force which can rely on naval resupply. In fact, _no amount of pack animals_ will get an army past 300 km or so, as animals themselves eat food (and I believe I calculated this by assuming animals are drawing wagons). You also have to remember that Ar-Pharazon actually had local supplies available - there were armies, and the entire logistical network, already in place in Middle-Earth, from Arnor to deep south in Harad. And unlike Sauron, he had naval transport available to enable drawing on that supply without significant transport losses. So his landing troops in Middle-Earth will not have been in any way similar to Normandy invasion of 1944.; in fact, it was much more like US transporting soldiers to Great Britain in preparation for the invasion, although Ar-Pharazon admittedly did it in a single "jump".

So even though Sauron's total available manpower likely was much greater, Numenor will have been much more capable of actually utilizing a significant proportion of available manpower due to its advantage in naval transport.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 2, 2020)

The advantages of water transport of goods - I fully agree with you. But we're talking transport of *troops* here. That is an entirely different matter. Up to well into the second millennium of our age, rowed galleys (at least in the Mediterranean, but not exclusively there) were preferred warships due to their being independent of wind. But these are very short-range vessels, pretty much coastal craft, and certainly not high-seas capable. Their importance plummeted with the advances of ship-borne artillery. I believe one of the reasons for the English (under Queen Elisabeth I) defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was the superior artillery of the smaller and faster English ships. The Spaniards were still fixated on the naval warfare "canon" of bringing ships hull-to-hull, and then sending their large (due to their size, making them sluggish) complement of troops to storm the enemy ship, capturing it in the process. The English (including Sir Francis Drake) stayed away from such encounters and basically shot the Spanish ships to pieces with their superior artillery. Granted, there was a storm that aided the English, and the Armada had more losses high-tailing it north around Scotland and then south around Ireland than during the actual battle (one reason there are so many "southern"-haired and -complexioned Irish, instead of the expected redheads - masses of shipwrecked Spanish sailors).

On the land side, there would be the (nomadic) Scythians of the 7th to 3rd centuries BC, which among other accomplishments annoyed the Persian emperors with guerrilla tactics, or at least what we would now call hit-and-run of cavalry (perhaps the first recorded) against sluggish infantry. Then the Huns of the 5th century AD, whose number I am not aware of, but they definitely made an impression on large parts of Europe. Then the Mongols of Genghis Khan and his successors, controlling more acreage than anyone before or since (if short-term) in the 13th century. And last Timur Lenk, possibly claiming some convoluted descent from Genghis, who in his last campaign (in 1405, during which he died) against Ming China led (by something I believe to remember) a six-figure (300 000) cavalry force and at least three times that (scraping seven figures) infantry. Especially the Easterlings might have matched such troop massings
"In fact, _no amount of pack animals_ will get an army past 300 km or so, as animals themselves eat food"
Explain ...


----------



## Aldarion (Apr 3, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> The advantages of water transport of goods - I fully agree with you. But we're talking transport of *troops* here. That is an entirely different matter. Up to well into the second millennium of our age, rowed galleys (at least in the Mediterranean, but not exclusively there) were preferred warships due to their being independent of wind. But these are very short-range vessels, pretty much coastal craft, and certainly not high-seas capable. Their importance plummeted with the advances of ship-borne artillery. I believe one of the reasons for the English (under Queen Elisabeth I) defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was the superior artillery of the smaller and faster English ships. The Spaniards were still fixated on the naval warfare "canon" of bringing ships hull-to-hull, and then sending their large (due to their size, making them sluggish) complement of troops to storm the enemy ship, capturing it in the process. The English (including Sir Francis Drake) stayed away from such encounters and basically shot the Spanish ships to pieces with their superior artillery. Granted, there was a storm that aided the English, and the Armada had more losses high-tailing it north around Scotland and then south around Ireland than during the actual battle (one reason there are so many "southern"-haired and -complexioned Irish, instead of the expected redheads - masses of shipwrecked Spanish sailors).



Actually, transport of troops is exactly the same as transport of goods. Warships were oared, yes. Troop ships were typically not, especially since in most cases troop transports were merely requisitioned merchant or cargo vessels - which in most cases relied solely on wind propulsion, as rowers were too expensive. Byzantine navy did utilize modified dromonds for troop and horse transport, though.

And relative importance of sailed vs oared ships is much more complex matter than that. In fact, advances in sailing technology and technique as well as hull construction meant that by 13th century sailed warships were preferred over galleys in both Baltic and Mediterranean. By 15th century Genoese were building carracks up to 900 tons of displacement. But in 16th century introduction of bronze shipborne artillery meant that galley were again preferred due to greater maneuverability and lower silhouette - cannons were few in number, placed on main deck and typically in chase arrangement, so galley could fire against hull of a sailling ship while shots from latter would sail over the galley. From 1520. to 1580. galleys dominated even the North Sea. In 17th century, introduction of gun ports and cast-iron cannons meant that sailing ships gradually replaced galleys.

But main issue here is distance. Usage of galleys meant that navy was merely amphibious arm of ground power. Venice conquered Croatian coast because they required harbours for rest and replenishment, as their galleys could not otherwise make trips to East. In other words, galleys follow coasts. It is a supply issue - Byzantine dromon could last no more than 7 to 10 days on sea. Numenor is some 20 days away, which is twice the endurance of oared warship. So Numenoreans either used primarily sailing ships for troop transport, or galleys supported logistically by sailling ships.



> On the land side, there would be the (nomadic) Scythians of the 7th to 3rd centuries BC, which among other accomplishments annoyed the Persian emperors with guerrilla tactics, or at least what we would now call hit-and-run of cavalry (perhaps the first recorded) against sluggish infantry. Then the Huns of the 5th century AD, whose number I am not aware of, but they definitely made an impression on large parts of Europe. Then the Mongols of Genghis Khan and his successors, controlling more acreage than anyone before or since (if short-term) in the 13th century. And last Timur Lenk, possibly claiming some convoluted descent from Genghis, who in his last campaign (in 1405, during which he died) against Ming China led (by something I believe to remember) a six-figure (300 000) cavalry force and at least three times that (scraping seven figures). Especially the Easterlings might have matched such troop massings



Scythians were defending from invasion in their own home area. It had nothing to do with "sluggish infantry" - they generally avoided combat - and everything to do with logistics. Huns and Mongols both made large use of local settled peoples. Mongols came to Europe with Chinese engineers and siegeworkers. They were also nomadic peoples, which means that they basically give big F.U. to logistics of settled armies (same as Scythians). But even so, Mongol armies which came to Europe were not that large, and when Europeans actually got their crap together, they cleaned the clock with Mongols. Second Mongol invasion of Hungary was amazing failure (but naturally it is the first one people remember, and thus you get the "invincible Mongols" trope...).



> "In fact, _no amount of pack animals_ will get an army past 300 km or so, as animals themselves eat food"
> Explain ...



Basically, pack animals pulling heavy weights (this includes war horses as well, much larger than steppe ponies) cannot rely solely on grazing to satisfy their caloric intake. Horse or oxen pulling wagon with food will eat the same food wagon is carrying (or food carried in one of other wagons). Wagons are pulled by horses, so increasing number or size of wagons will also increase number of horses. At one point - cca 300-odd kilometers according to my calculations - you get to the point that animal (mule in this case, IIRC), needs to eat nearly all food just to get itself and the wagon to the end point. Grazing can increase this distance, but not indefinitely, and at the expense of significant time.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 7, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> Actually, transport of troops is exactly the same as transport of goods. Warships were oared, yes. Troop ships were typically not, especially since in most cases troop transports were merely requisitioned merchant or cargo vessels - which in most cases relied solely on wind propulsion, as rowers were too expensive. Byzantine navy did utilize modified dromonds for troop and horse transport, though.
> 
> And relative importance of sailed vs oared ships is much more complex matter than that. In fact, advances in sailing technology and technique as well as hull construction meant that by 13th century sailed warships were preferred over galleys in both Baltic and Mediterranean. By 15th century Genoese were building carracks up to 900 tons of displacement. But in 16th century introduction of bronze shipborne artillery meant that galley were again preferred due to greater maneuverability and lower silhouette - cannons were few in number, placed on main deck and typically in chase arrangement, so galley could fire against hull of a sailling ship while shots from latter would sail over the galley. From 1520. to 1580. galleys dominated even the North Sea. In 17th century, introduction of gun ports and cast-iron cannons meant that sailing ships gradually replaced galleys.
> 
> ...


What if logistic forces use wooden ox and flowing horse_?_ Can such transport vehicles diminish all the supplies consumed by livestock and only calculate the consumption caused by the operators?


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 7, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> What is logistic forces use wooden ox and flowing horse_?_ Can such transport vehicles diminish all the supplies consumed by livestock and only calculate the consumption caused by the operators?



Grazing can reduce amount of fodder consumed, but if you want to reduce it to zero, what you want are steppe ponies, like what Mongols used.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 7, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> Grazing can reduce amount of fodder consumed, but if you want to reduce it to zero, what you want are steppe ponies, like what Mongols used.


I see, after all, pastures aren't able to grow everywhere, yet if acting with enough steppe ponies(without any load on these livestock, they're the food) then even the logistic forces's consumption can be solved by eating these Mongol horses.


----------

