# Men Of Gondor = Roman Soldiers (sp)



## LadyGaladriel (Apr 4, 2002)

Did anyone feel that when the read LOTR that they could see similarities between the Men Of Gondor and The Romans 
For 
1)There is a saying about if a Roman Soldier was told to stand in a set place to his death he will - In gondor (ROTK) The Penity of leaving your place was Death 

2) Their organisation and Armour and In the film this showed this 

Any Opions?(sp)


----------



## tyeruler (Apr 4, 2002)

it is hard ot say.....

you have to remember that Tolkien wrote some of LOTR while being in WWII. So it is posible that he is trying to make the Men of Gondor look like soldiers of some sort.....but Roman Soldiers....who knows!!!


----------



## Lantarion (Apr 4, 2002)

Basically yes, because the Gondorian army was very vast and quite effective; and it was the capital of a huge kingdom, like Rome.
But despite the harsh rule of death for leaving your place, the Gondorian army was not as disciplined and strict as the Roman. At least it doesn't seem that way to me. Or it might, if it was a choise between Roman and Spartan soldiers!


----------



## Hanne (Apr 4, 2002)

I am learning a lot about Rome at school and,yes,they do look very much like Roman soldiers!!!Actually whole Gondor made me think of the Roman Empire.There was also a lot of trouble about the kingship and the emperors ,it also has a very simular history (if you look at the big lines) and the army organization was simular.


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 4, 2002)

There are certainly some similarities, though Gondor lacks the same bloodlust that drove the Romans. The mix between Art and Death is more romanticised in Tolkiens work than it was in the stark reality of the Roman Empire and its rulers. 

There is no evidence that the peoples of Gondor desired the same entertainment provided by the forced Gladiatorial battles that so pleased the Romans. Possibly the lack of brutality in Tolkiens mind shows his distaste for the practices employed by Romans upon their slaves and conquered subjects. That is not to say that all Romans were barbaric in their own modernised way, yet it speaks volumes for the mentality of a nation, driven by war and defeated by it.


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 5, 2002)

*Gondor's Legion*

I have to agree, the legions of Gondor do resemble the well organized legions of Rome. However, this only applies to the "grunt" infantry. (of course, that would be about 90% of Gondor's army) The real kicker however is Faramir's band. They seem to recall the old Celtic Combrogi (damn I hope I spelled that right). A modern equivalent would be to the British SAS or my old unit the US Army Rangers.

Thanks, this was a good thread
RD


----------



## Niniel (Apr 5, 2002)

Mmm.... as a history student I should be able to have some answer to this. I think the army of Gondor resembles the Roman one in its discipline (although Tolkien doesn't give enough detail to explore the Gondorian strategies in full), but not in its purpose. The Romans used their army mainly to conquer territories, at least at the heyday of the Empire (100 BC-200 AD), but Gondor uses it mainly for defense. It is never said that the Gondorians wilingly conquered other countries, not even when it was at its strongest (in the Second Age).
Over all, Tolkien has been much more interested and studied in Old English, Norse and Celtic mythology and history, and takes very few references from Roman history. Therefore I think there is not enough evidence to say Tolkien willingly modelled the Gondorian army on the Roman one, because he just doesn't write enough about them to compare the two.
As to Rangerdave's point about Faramir's band, that is interesting, because I do not know of any such bands in Roman history. Or maybe they should be seen just as a scouting party, which there were of course in Roman armies as well. You're right about the existence of such bands in Celtic history, though I don't know a lot about them.
I like the society and army of Rohan as well, it seems Tolkien has described them exactly as the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of England. Even their language is Old English (éo means horse, Éowyn means 'joy in horses' Dernhelm means 'helm of secrecy' etc etc etc.).


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 6, 2002)

*Ooops*

Sorry, I did not mean to say that the Romans had any kind of Special Operations troops. I just meant to say that Faramir's company operated outside the normal Military organization as sort of a independant unit. 

The Romans had small sapper (engineer) units and sparse caverly, but these units were considered beneath the common legionaire. Also, I suppose that the Guards that Pippin enlists into can be considered a close proximation to the Preatorian Guards.

Sorry for the confussion.
RD


----------



## Tao (Apr 6, 2002)

Hmmm...this is an interesting idea. I see what you mean, though...I guess so. There are some strange similarities.


----------



## Niniel (Apr 6, 2002)

That's a nice comparison between the Praetorian Guards and the Guards of Minas Tirith. But the Romans of course were not the only people that had special guards to guard the capital city or the emperor/ruler. So I don't think Tolkien really consciously meant to make the Gondorian army look like the Romans.


----------



## Elanor2 (Apr 6, 2002)

I do not think that the Gondor army resembles a Roman one. It was efficient, but so was, for example Napoleon's army. A couple of years ago I looked at the battle plans of the combined army that defeated Napoleon in Belgium, and I must say that they won by sheer superiority of numbers, not necessarily by being more efficient.

Any successful army has to be efficient, if it wants to win, so any winning army looks efficient, but not necessarily similar.

Roman's had a very hierarchical structure (decurias, centurias...). They had organized camps that looked almost the same in every terrain. Their main weapon in open battles was the Pilum, a heavy lance whose point bended on impact to the enemies' shield, remaining hanging from it and forcing the opponent to discard the now useless shield. That left the enemy open to sword attack. Additionally, they used lots of engines and engineering work when attacking cities.

I haven't seen things like that in Tolkien's battles. I would not say that they are comparable, based on that.


----------



## Niniel (Apr 7, 2002)

I didn't mean thay were comparable, sorry if I made that impression; there are of course similarities like the strong discipline of the Gondorian army, but that's about all. What I really meant is that there just isn't enough about the armies and strategies and hierarchical structure in LOTR to see what they really are like. The only thing you read about it is how many men there are, but nothing else. It isn't clear how the armies were arranged exactly and what kind of weapons they had. 
What is clear however that it was not a standing army; it consists of men who are no professional soldiers, but farmers etc. (at least not all of thema are professionals), unlike the Roman army. Considering their weapons, I don't suppose they had large shields like Romans, but more likely a small shield and a sword (it doesn't say anything about lances).


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 8, 2002)

*Classic examples*

Well put.

I suppose that if one were to look for a real example from history to compare with the Army of Gondor, a logical choice would be to the English Army under Herny V at the battle of Angicourt (sp?). Their victory was a direct result of superior tactics, motivation and training. Interestingly enough, this was the battle that gave us the world famous British two fingered salute.

Enjoy
RD


----------



## Lantarion (Apr 8, 2002)

These 'tactics' were nothing but effective use of the longbow instead of all-out man-to-man war. Most of the French troops were killed within a distance of one mile by the English archers. (I don't think the Frenchies appreciated that, as they cut off the two fingers of the archers they captured!)


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 8, 2002)

I beg to disagree.

The use of the longbow was the determining weapon at the scene, but the placement of the archers was tactical brillance. Henry effectively routed a significantly stronger force by channeling Mounted Knights into a bottleneck allowing for the wholesale decimation of French Heavy Horse. 

also the range was considerablly less than one mile. While it is true that the British longbow can indirectly plunge arrows at ranges close to that. Henry used his bowmen for direct fire at ranges of no more that 100yards. This is the first recorded account of direct fire archers used to defeat heavy horse, and says much for the tactical command prowse of Henry. 

Not that it really matters much for the sake of this argument. The point is that Aragorn and company through valour and skill were able to give much worse than they got. Even at the battle before the gates of Mordor. The Allied forces of Gondor and Rohan inflicted far more casualties then they received. Granted without the destruction of the Ring Aragorn and company would have eventually been defeated, however, the force needed to defeat them would have been significantly greater than their own.

Just my thoughts on the matter
no offense intended
RD


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 6, 2002)

Where is JeffF when you really need him?

Something that has been playing on my mind in the method of managing the defence of the 7 Gates! How many guarded each one? How many were in waiting? How was food and provisions transported to these outposts? Was there a wandering force just outside the hidden gate?

Only one person I know can add address these questions, and he ain't anywhere to be seen


----------



## Proudfoots (Dec 6, 2002)

I'd never considered the troops of Gondor to be similar to Rome. Nor, do i think, did Tolkien ever refer to the legions of Gondor.

A Roman legion was a unit of 1000 men, their strategies WERE based on defense, even when conquering Gaul they were more concerned with offense than defense (like the Toronto Maple Leafs) Taht is why the Romans were famous for their well defended camps. Attacking the Romans on Campaign was like attacking a fortress, every night they would fortify their position. Caesar wrote a great deal about their fortifications.

I have always thought more of the Egyptians, in the way of their Grandiose buildings and monuments. Gondor of old was a 'monumental' culture, if you can ignore the pun. Though i would say that Tolkien created a rather unique culture that stands without much comparison to anything Europe could have assembled.

Sadly, there is no city that compairs with Minas Tirith...

though i do like the reference to the Praetorian Guard.

And a note about disipline, even during WW1 it was punishable by death to not 'go over the top', so Gondor wasn't much different from anyone else

'foots


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 6, 2002)

Proudfoots......feets....., you have some very valid points there. Enough actually to gain entry to the Guild of Ost-in-Edhil, where can venture more suggestions to the OiE-Wiki project


----------



## Proudfoots (Dec 6, 2002)

Thank you for the invite, what, may I ask have i to do...

'foots


----------



## Eriol (Dec 9, 2002)

An enlightening thread, very good indeed. I also don't think there is a similarity in the equipment, though they appear similar in efficiency. But not in organization, as one can see when we recall the scene witnessed by Bergil and Pippin. Several companies, unlike each other, under different commanding officers, all under the leadership of the Steward (no middle hierarchy). Probably the Romans would have though it was a mess! Sure, they used other forces besides your traditional Roman legion, especially at the end of the Empire (but wasn't Gondor at its end also?). But the chain of command was clearer in the Roman army, I think.

I hate to nit-pick, but... 



> It is never said that the Gondorians wilingly conquered other countries, not even when it was at its strongest (in the Second Age).



I would have thought Gondor was only established by Elendil, and existed for less than a century in the 2nd Age (though you may be meaning the Numenorian colony there, before Elendil's arrival). Also, Gondor conquered many lands in wars in the 3rd Age. I think a map of Gondor's greatest territory would include Mordor, the plains north of Mordor up ro the Sea of Rhûn, Little (?) Harad and Umbar. I may be wrong though, I don't have the appendices at hand -- it is all in the Tale of Years.

I would have liked to see a Gondorian army in a war of conquest... the barbarian in me.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Dec 9, 2002)

Hmmm... interesting thought. I have always said that Gondor is applicable as eastern Roman empire.

I don't really think that the Roman army was very like to the one of Gondor, at least not the famous legionaire. Gondor would be called a dark age army if analyzed by most (though I do not like the expression dark age) for they use the same equipment: Round wooden shields, cutting swords, bows and most importantly chainmails. After 280 B.C (and earlier) it is hard to speak of a regular Roman army since there were mostly different tribes hired or bribed to defend the Roman borders. These were often granted the status _Foederati_, allies, and given land at the borders, like Rohan. 

One important point is the archers for since the Roman strategy was the same as of the Greek phalanx they used few bowmen. This was because the bows of the time wre not strong enough to break through armor. Chainmail was not used by the Romans in any great extent until long after the "classic" period even though chainmails are portrayed on gladiators even 100 B.C (!). The most usual Roman armor were sevral "ribs" of metal that were tied together on the chest of the soldier. The Roman shields were large and used for fighting in defensive formations with spears and in close combat short stabbing swords. The Gondorian round shields seem to have been used for arrows and individual combat were greater mobility and thus shields were required. 

On the cavalry there is also a distinct difference, in Gondor they are highly valued and needed knights that re unfortunately too sparse to be used as they should. In the Roman empire they were used for battles against the enemy's cavalry, pursuit, raiding and reconaissance. They were not valued highly at all. Despite this the Romans had great use of them, Caesar wrote something like this (I don't wanna get up and get my "De bello Gallo" now): "And all our long labours in Gaul may have proved to be in vain this day had it not been for the German cavalry. For they patrolled and chased away the fierce gallic forces that harried our march through the pass. Their valour was great and they proved themselves worthy of my trust." Later Caesar gave some of them citizenships (!) and this is one of the reasons to that he was later murdered by the slightly mentally weak Brutus and his companions.

There is one more thing, I have to disagree with what Ancalagon says about the Roman empires bloodlust, could you explain that a little further?

Húrin Thalion


----------



## Proudfoots (Dec 9, 2002)

Hurin, i can see your comparison to the eastern empire of Constantine.

-Firstly, the Byzantines were pretty much always in a state of slow decline remembering the glory of hte old days. 

-Second, and more importantly is the location of the city. Constantinople (and Minas Tirith) were founded first with defense in mind
They were both build on a great bend in a great river (if you wanna call the Bosphorus a river, i don't know any other term for it, it is like the St. Lawrence in canada)

Both Constantinople (in later days) and Minas Tirith had much smaller populations by the time of their last battles (Suliemain the magnificent and the witchking of Angmar both had cool titles)

The walls Constantinople and Minas Tirith were considered impenetrable. Though i imagine that this goes for a lot of places, may as welll build up the reputation that it is impenetrable, then, when your enemies are sitting around they do not say 'oh yeah, lets go conquer Minas Tirith, i hear the wallls were built by the 3 little pigs'

Towards its last days Constantinople was completely cut off from it's vassal states...

of course, the biggest hole in this theory is that the Eastern Empire got its @$$ wooped by the Turks while Gondor prevailed...but otherwise, strong theory.

I think the bloodlust of the Roman empire was a referal to the 120 days of Circus' that Caesar threw, more circus ment the poor were happy, every leader followed Caesar's example, even before, Suli and those boys were bribing the poor withthe Circus (rather like the way my parents used to bride me)

you've gotta be pretty lusty if you are being bought off with a hundred days a year of battles, the odd christian baiting, and watching lyons eat tigers.

'foots


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Dec 10, 2002)

What i meant with the bloodlust question was what Ancalagon meant with that Gondor lacked the Roman bloodlust to conquer. I think that conquering needs a will and not bloodlust, that will only decieve you and wake the population against you. The most succesful Roman conwuerings were achieved with diplomacy: Greece where Flaminius proclaimed Hellas' freedom, Gaul where Julius Caesar tied himself and the state very close to the Gauls and the old Alexandrian empires were Rome brought peace after long fighting. I do not think that the games at colosseum aided the Roman conquest in any way.

And there is still the fact, Gondor had a dark age army with middle medieval pieces in it. One thing worth noting is that they did not use as primitive weapons as clubs, maces and axes (even though these were widely used in medieval times too). If I had to date the Gondorian army I'd say that it is around 1000 C.E. (Common Era, A.D). Reminds me a little of William the conquerors army in fact but with fewer knights.
I am no expert historian though.

Húrin Thalion


----------



## Proudfoots (Dec 10, 2002)

Remember that Tolkien was taking liberties on the time of the novel, so that it would unplacable...

I would have to disagree with your statement that Rome used diplomacy as their main weapon. Certainly, it was one of their most formidable weapons, they were as duplicitous as modern statesmen yet they were dealing with tribal chiefs who were somewhat naive.

When Caesar went to Rome, he managed to talk the tribes into joining him, or tricking them, but the victory was an overwhelming military one. The campaign lasted for a number of years, finally ending with the Siege of Alesia where Vercingitorx (my spelling is bad) was defeated by Caesar the general, not Caesar the diplomat.

The Roman's had a well deserved reputation for being the best Infantry in the world at the time...

'foots


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 10, 2002)

I don't see much comparison between the Roman and Gondorian armies. Death was the penalty for deserting your post in WWI as well as Gondor (pour encourager les autres). Any army would have limited strategies for the defence of a besieged city, especially given the size of the army sent against it; and any forays detailed in Lord of the Rings were at the whim of the despondent Denethor, until Aragorn arrived. Enough explanation of Rome's tactics and strategies are given above - a whole lot more bloodthirsty and empire-hungry than the men of Gondor. The existence of the independent kingdom of Rohan (and how it came about) illustrates the difference. An illustration of Rome's brutal rule is illustrated in its handling of Boudicca of the Iceni, a Briton, who would have remained happily Romanised except for a pugnaceous Roman leader wanting to flex his muscle and stamp his authority.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Dec 10, 2002)

I could not agree more heartily 'Foots and Eledhwen but I have always got a but. I think the Roman diplomacy is underestimated, indeed I don't think that there would be a Rome to marble at without their diplomacy. In the early history when Rome was still a small town upon the seven hills near the crossing of the Tiber the city started conquering their neighbours as any state of the time would do if strong enough. Most rulers would however have exacted heavy tributes from the new subjects and really put his soul in humiliating them. This was not the way of Rome, instead they signed treaties that granted the captured cities some freedoms but still bound them to Rome. This made the middle Italians extremely loyal to Rome (they did not rebel until the time of Sulla which was about 150 years after their capture. Rome managed to keep their subjets obedient through all the long wars and this was all due to diplomacy. 

When I talk about why Rome reigned supreme I say first this and then something very important, Rome was a republic. This meant continuity and preserving of strategies despite the change of generations. Many great realms were built by strong kings to fall under their weaker sons but not so with Rome. In Gondor there was a monarchy and it is obvious that the state did worse under bad stewards, Denethor for example. This is the main reason for the nations decay though it was strong enough to resist the tearings of time for long years.

Húrin Thalion


----------



## Brent (Dec 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Proudfoots _
> *I'd never considered the troops of Gondor to be similar to Rome. Nor, do i think, did Tolkien ever refer to the legions of Gondor.
> 
> A Roman legion was a unit of 1000 men ..... *



Actually a Roman Legion was 5,000 men (5,200) and although I suppose you would call it a "unit" its not really used in that sense its more figurative, a commander would talk in terms of Cohorts. So you might say Sulla's legions to refer to his "armies" but Sulla would refer to say 15 cohorts (about a legion and a half)

Its interesting to read everyones opinions on this, especially because it exposes the great detail contained within the Works, in another thread we discussed the Numenorean Bow and a poster pointed out that Isildur had few of these when he was ambushed at Gladden and close contact occured very early - resulting in defeat. The Numenorean bow (made of steel I recall) sounds more powerful than the English Longbow, presumably an Elven bow is even deadlier, maybe why first and second age armies were more powerful against the orcs than later ones ?

I have to say that I think the recent films have attempted the weapon interpretation rather well, especially the elven stuff which must be very hard just to come up with out of the blue - anyway getting boring so I'll shut up.
Do carry on.


----------



## Kheld (Jun 1, 2011)

Ive always had a mental image of Gondor being broadly similair to Rome. 

Both armies relied on well trained infantry with minimal cavalry forces, both cultures were advanced in engineering & built wonders in stone.

Both empires were continually assaulted by more numerous barbarian forces, and indeed suffered from internal conflict. 

I can see how Tolkien might have been thinking of Byantizum when Minas Tirith was imagined.


----------



## Parsifal (Jun 1, 2011)

I sometimes compare the Third Age to the Middle Ages, from a European perspective.
Several invasions from East and South are repelled, but often they weaken European powers.
The Plague devestates the population, the Roman Empire falls while the Eastern is declining despite some attemps to turn things around. The fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire and the realms of Charlemagne and Clovis. Occupations of foreign territories (Holy Land) are short lived.
Europe is victim to several threatening invasions, like Atilla who destabilises the Roman Empire, the Caliphate which is finally repelled at Poitiers, Timur who drives the Turks further up towards Constantinople, and above all the Mongol Hordes, whose long spree of victories is finally stopped by the death of their leader far away (much like Sauron's hordes).

But ofcours, all comparisons go amiss when examined further. Tolkien did not completely base his universe on any historical event, it is its own history with elements of many different legends. For example, France and England were mostly concerned with the danger they posed for each other, and not that much about the threat of heathen hordes threatening fellow christians thousands of miles away, and the same goes for muslim empires.

Still, much like the Ages of Middle Earth, European history can be viewed as succesive waves of conquest and decline.
The legendary past of Greek prehistory, Indo-European cultures throughout the Middle East and India, possibly even Atlantis (who knows), followed by a Dark Age of which little is known.
Then Greece is under constant threat by the vast Persian Empire, untill they are finally repelled and even conquered by Alexanders Empire, which declines after his death.
The rise of Rome which unites much of Europe and conquers the entire Medditerenean, only to fall and be replaced by short lived Germanic states.
The rise of Islam throughout North Africa and into Iberia and southern France, eventually stopped and slowly driven back.
And after the turbulant Middle Ages a long era of European dominance worldwide, reaching its peak at the early 20th century.
Finally, today's Europe can be seen as being in decline again, having lost its colonies, its economic superiority and increasingly its unique cultures.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jun 2, 2011)

Húrin Thalion said:


> What i meant with the bloodlust question was what Ancalagon meant with that Gondor lacked the Roman bloodlust to conquer. I think that conquering needs a will and not bloodlust, that will only decieve you and wake the population against you. The most succesful Roman conwuerings were achieved with diplomacy: Greece where Flaminius proclaimed Hellas' freedom, *Gaul where Julius Caesar tied himself and the state very close to the Gauls and the old Alexandrian empires were Rome brought peace after long fighting*. I do not think that the games at colosseum aided the Roman conquest in any way.
> 
> Húrin Thalion


 
Peace by genocide doesn't really counter the bloodlust argument :*p


----------



## Mike (Jun 2, 2011)

Political organization seems closer to the Byzantine Empire in the early Middle Ages, though the armour descriptions put me in mind of later medieval Italian styles (in the case of Imrahil, anyhow). The design of Minas Tirith definitely recalls late medieval/renaissance Italy, but there's nothing much there that makes me think "classical Roman".


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jun 3, 2011)

Hey Mike,

I'm pretty unfamiliar with the time periods and places you mentioned; would you like to elaborate? :*) Fishing for a free history lesson here


----------



## Mike (Jun 3, 2011)

Prince of Cats said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> I'm pretty unfamiliar with the time periods and places you mentioned; would you like to elaborate? :*) Fishing for a free history lesson here



Try this:

http://www.bondwine.com/essays/38/gondor.html

As for the Minas Tirith -- medieval Italian connection, well:


----------

