Warfare in Rings of Power Season 1

[Aldarion]

Warfare in Rings of Power Season 1

As in everything else, Rings of Power have chosen to go for brainless “epicness” in their depiction of warfare as well. Not many good things can be said about this “epic” TV…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

As in everything else, Rings of Power have chosen to go for brainless “epicness” in their depiction of warfare as well. Not many good things can be said about this “epic” TV show, and warfare in it is no exception.

 

[Finchbearer]

I appreciate the research you put into warfare, but the article feels more like a personal opinion expressed about the creative choices of the show.

I enjoyed Rings of Power, and the warfare felt realistic (as far as creative license and fantasy goes), visceral and epic enough to set the series up for an introduction to their own creative interpretation of Middle Earth.

 

[Aldarion]

I enjoyed Rings of Power, and the warfare felt realistic (as far as creative license and fantasy goes), visceral and epic enough to set the series up for an introduction to their own creative interpretation of Middle Earth.

Eh... it is a lot of things, but it is farthest thing from realistic, visceral and epic there is. And very few of the things it is are good. I mean, series itself is an insult to Tolkien, but even ignoring that, they completely missed the mark in every single aspect they could. There is literally nothing approaching realism, coherency or sanity included in the series.

Monty Python's Holy Grail has far better depictions of warfare than Rings of Power do.

 

[Finchbearer]

Uh oh, that’s the thing about opinions, they are not always the same as your own.

 

[Aldarion]

Uh oh, that’s the thing about opinions, they are not always the same as your own.

I know. But thing about opinions is that some of them are purely subjective while others can be objectively assessed.

That you enjoyed Rings of Power is purely subjective... nothing to discuss there.

That warfare felt realistic however is something that can be discussed because there are ways to objectively assess how realistic warfare in Rings of Power was.

As for being "epic"... that can be both objective and subjective, depending on what you mean with "epic".

 

[Mad Swede]

I know. But thing about opinions is that some of them are purely subjective while others can be objectively assessed.

That you enjoyed Rings of Power is purely subjective... nothing to discuss there.

That warfare felt realistic however is something that can be discussed because there are ways to objectively assess how realistic warfare in Rings of Power was.

As for being "epic"... that can be both objective and subjective, depending on what you mean with "epic".

No. Your opinion on warfare is subjective, since you yourself have only read other peoples accounts and analyses of warfare. There is also no way of making an objective analysis of a fantasy battle involving ents, dwarves, orcs and elves (or indeed any alien race in SF), since to do so without a detailed description of their tactics and strategy (and hence also those values which form the basis for their doctrine) is to assume that they would use the same tactics as humans. It's worth pointing out that Tolkien never discusses tactics or strategy in detail in any of his books, the descriptions of battles are either very broad or (as in The Hobbit) emphasise one characters experiences and make the point that this character had no idea how things were going overall.

 

[Finchbearer]

As I said before Aldarion, I appreciate that your strengths lie in your ability to research and learn give a cross section between fact and fiction, however with a piece like this, I think you may benefit from giving a distinction between opinion piece and analysis.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Monty Python's Holy Grail has far better depictions of warfare than Rings of Power do.

Even the coconuts?

 

[Aldarion]

No. Your opinion on warfare is subjective, since you yourself have only read other peoples accounts and analyses of warfare. There is also no way of making an objective analysis of a fantasy battle involving ents, dwarves, orcs and elves (or indeed any alien race in SF), since to do so without a detailed description of their tactics and strategy (and hence also those values which form the basis for their doctrine) is to assume that they would use the same tactics as humans. It's worth pointing out that Tolkien never discusses tactics or strategy in detail in any of his books, the descriptions of battles are either very broad or (as in The Hobbit) emphasise one characters experiences and make the point that this character had no idea how things were going overall.

Wrong.

Firstly, none of us have experienced medieval warfare. Experiencing modern warfare is not so useful for that purpose, since it is so different in basic nature - you can see that simply from difference in attitude towards warfare before and after the First World War. As society changes so does warfare - and it changes more the lower you go (so changes on tactical level are far quicker and more pronounced than they are at strategic level). And even if somebody were to construct a time machine and participate in e.g. Battle of Hastings, that wouldn't make his opinion suddenly objective. It would merely make it more likely to be correct since he will have actually seen and experienced a medieval battle.

Secondly, ents, dwarves, orcs and elves all share the same fundamental body plan, general physiology and indeed psychology, as humans do. Therefore, there will be absolutely nothing that any of them will come up with that has not already been done somewhere, someplace in real-life history. And this means that yes, making an objective analysis of a fantasy battle is indeed possible, because a battle between two groups of humanoids in a roughly medieval setting absolutely has to follow certain rules. We are not talking Cthulhuoids vs Starfish Aliens here.

Thirdly, we actually have descriptions of actual tactics and strategies as used in the source material - regardless of whether you consider Tolkien's own work or Peter Jackson's adaptations as being "source material" (both views are valid). In either case tactics used heavily conform to actual historical warfare (more so in Tolkien, far less so in Jackson). Therefore, to claim that it is "wrong to assume that they would use the same tactics as humans" is in itself wrong, because there are no assumptions here. We outright know that yes, they do use same tactics as humans, because we see them use those tactics - in the books and the movies alike.

And Tolkien doesn't spend paragraphs discussing tactics and strategy in the books the way George Martin does. But that doesn't mean he doesn't describe it. Even surface reading of his works will reveal a wealth of details on both counts - from the fact that the Rohirrim use shield walls when fighting on foot to basics of Sauron's strategy. In fact, Tolkien gave more attention to his characters' tactics and strategies than most other fantasy authors I know of.

As I said before Aldarion, I appreciate that your strengths lie in your ability to research and learn give a cross section between fact and fiction, however with a piece like this, I think you may benefit from giving a distinction between opinion piece and analysis.

Analysis is a type of opinion piece. The only way to exclude opinion is to provide mere factual overview of events, and who would bother reading that?

Even the coconuts?

Especially the coconuts.

 

[Finchbearer]

Analysis is not opinion. Whilst it may contain some subjectivity, analysis comprises of facts, logic and supporting evidence. Your article here is opinion.

 

[Finchbearer]

Analysis is not opinion. Whilst it may contain some subjectivity, analysis comprises of facts, logic and supporting evidence. Your article here is opinion.

Which I may extend to say that there is nothing wrong with writing an opinion piece, just as I said before, as I am reading it, it’s clear that you’re trying to convince us that RoP is factually incorrect, where I think it’s comes across as opinion rather than analysis. I am not convinced it’s even something you can cross analyse. It would make more sense to me if you gave your opinion on the creative choices made by the producers, and where it feels like they got it right or wrong in terms of fantasy writing.

 

[Aldarion]

Which I may extend to say that there is nothing wrong with writing an opinion piece, just as I said before, as I am reading it, it’s clear that you’re trying to convince us that RoP is factually incorrect, where I think it’s comes across as opinion rather than analysis. I am not convinced it’s even something you can cross analyse. It would make more sense to me if you gave your opinion on the creative choices made by the producers, and where it feels like they got it right or wrong in terms of fantasy writing.

Problem I have with Rings of Power isn't even historical inaccuracy as such, but rather the fact that it is so inaccurate nothing makes sense anymore. At least to me.

As for "creative choices made by the producers", there is little I can comment there because... there really aren't many choices they did actively make. They pilfered Peter Jackson for aesthetics, and introduced several groups of PoV characters, most of whom I can't criticize because they have neither characterization nor story to criticize to begin with!

But in general, Rings of Power have:

1. unnatural and stiff dialogue
2. flat and uninteresting characters - they are basically cardboard cutouts playing a story
3. character assassination carried out against basically all of Tolkien's characters
4. no distinction between the characters or groups of characters (basically, everybody feels like a bunch of postmodern humans... forget elves being, well, elves)
5. no sense of geography whatsoever
6. dozen or so storylines, most of which go nowhere and are too boring to even pay attention to to begin with
7. plot armor made of bloody neutronium
8. stupid stereotyping and misconceptions about medieval life (e.g. dirty peasants)

 

[Mad Swede]

Wrong.

Firstly, none of us have experienced medieval warfare. Experiencing modern warfare is not so useful for that purpose, since it is so different in basic nature - you can see that simply from difference in attitude towards warfare before and after the First World War. As society changes so does warfare - and it changes more the lower you go (so changes on tactical level are far quicker and more pronounced than they are at strategic level). And even if somebody were to construct a time machine and participate in e.g. Battle of Hastings, that wouldn't make his opinion suddenly objective. It would merely make it more likely to be correct since he will have actually seen and experienced a medieval battle.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Trust me when I tell you that some of the large scale scirmishes I saw in Africa were fought with old style weapons (swords, knives, clubs) using some very old style tactics. There is very little difference between a fight like that and a medieval battle. Not in the way people fight, not in how they behave and not in how they react afterwards. I know there isn't, I and my troops had to pick up the pieces (sometimes literally) after fights like that. And they way people behave and react in an old-style fight like that is very smiliar to the way they act in a modern battle - and I've been in a few of those too.

Secondly, ents, dwarves, orcs and elves all share the same fundamental body plan, general physiology and indeed psychology, as humans do. Therefore, there will be absolutely nothing that any of them will come up with that has not already been done somewhere, someplace in real-life history. And this means that yes, making an objective analysis of a fantasy battle is indeed possible, because a battle between two groups of humanoids in a roughly medieval setting absolutely has to follow certain rules. We are not talking Cthulhuoids vs Starfish Aliens here.

Similar physiology does not imply similar ways of thinking or even the same view of themselves and the world around them. Even being the same species (ie human) does not mean that two groups see life and warfare in the same way. Modern examples would be the Taliban compared to western nations such as the US, or Japanese doctrine compared to US doctrine during the Second World War. Speaking from personal experience, conducting operations against such opponents is very challenging.

So there is no reason why two different races (eg Ents and Orcs) would fight in the same way or even look on casualties in the same way - and they don't in the Lord of the Rings.

Thirdly, we actually have descriptions of actual tactics and strategies as used in the source material - regardless of whether you consider Tolkien's own work or Peter Jackson's adaptations as being "source material" (both views are valid). In either case tactics used heavily conform to actual historical warfare (more so in Tolkien, far less so in Jackson). Therefore, to claim that it is "wrong to assume that they would use the same tactics as humans" is in itself wrong, because there are no assumptions here. We outright know that yes, they do use same tactics as humans, because we see them use those tactics - in the books and the movies alike.

No, we have descriptions of battles and small scirmishes. That is not a description of tactics or strategy. I know it isn't because as an officer I did the junior, higher and senior staff courses. I have a Masters degree in War Studies and I've commanded in the field at all levels up to and including a brigade in the field on a very real military operation.

And Tolkien doesn't spend paragraphs discussing tactics and strategy in the books the way George Martin does. But that doesn't mean he doesn't describe it. Even surface reading of his works will reveal a wealth of details on both counts - from the fact that the Rohirrim use shield walls when fighting on foot to basics of Sauron's strategy. In fact, Tolkien gave more attention to his characters' tactics and strategies than most other fantasy authors I know of.

No, Tolkien doesn't describe strategy or tactics. Not in a military sense, and not in a political sense either.

Analysis is a type of opinion piece. The only way to exclude opinion is to provide mere factual overview of events, and who would bother reading that?

No it is not. A chemical analysis of some substance is not an opinion, it is fact. Operational analysis of military battles is not an opinion, it is fact based on some very well grounded theories.

 

[Finchbearer]

I agree with your points made on stiff dialogue and cardboard cutout characters, but I think this was due to the creators of the series trying to keep the original voice of Tolkien whilst also working with an entirely different narrative style. I think they got some things right and some things wrong, but with any pre-established canon there is always going to be cross analysis and therefore criticism. Peter Jackson also got a lot of things wrong in my opinion, but also made something great, considering that as soon as the medium is changed, it becomes its own creative project.

I think RoP did well to build the foundation to what hopefully will be a setup to the next series and maybe they will find their stride. They have also done one thing that I can commend them on and that is giving the characters more agency, but with that they have moved away from Tolkien’s omniscient style.

On the battle scenes, although I am not an expert in medieval warfare or otherwise, I still felt as though the battle scenes felt more visceral than that of Jackson’s interpretation, and at least more realistic. More brutal.

 

[Finchbearer]

On the interpretation of the ‘Southlanders’ I can have a good laugh at that because they are essentially depicted as dumb peasant Yorkshirefolk, which… is where I am from.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Trust me when I tell you that some of the large scale scirmishes I saw in Africa were fought with old style weapons (swords, knives, clubs) using some very old style tactics. There is very little difference between a fight like that and a medieval battle. Not in the way people fight, not in how they behave and not in how they react afterwards. I know there isn't, I and my troops had to pick up the pieces (sometimes literally) after fights like that. And they way people behave and react in an old-style fight like that is very smiliar to the way they act in a modern battle - and I've been in a few of those too.

Similar physiology does not imply similar ways of thinking or even the same view of themselves and the world around them. Even being the same species (ie human) does not mean that two groups see life and warfare in the same way. Modern examples would be the Taliban compared to western nations such as the US, or Japanese doctrine compared to US doctrine during the Second World War. Speaking from personal experience, conducting operations against such opponents is very challenging.

So there is no reason why two different races (eg Ents and Orcs) would fight in the same way or even look on casualties in the same way - and they don't in the Lord of the Rings.

No, we have descriptions of battles and small scirmishes. That is not a description of tactics or strategy. I know it isn't because as an officer I did the junior, higher and senior staff courses. I have a Masters degree in War Studies and I've commanded in the field at all levels up to and including a brigade in the field on a very real military operation.

No, Tolkien doesn't describe strategy or tactics. Not in a military sense, and not in a political sense either.

No it is not. A chemical analysis of some substance is not an opinion, it is fact. Operational analysis of military battles is not an opinion, it is fact based on some very well grounded theories.

Can't help but be curious now: what would you recommend cinematically for accurate depictions of medieval warfare?

Problem I have with Rings of Power isn't even historical inaccuracy as such, but rather the fact that it is so inaccurate nothing makes sense anymore. At least to me.

Same question to you. You gotta top three for spot-on cinematic depiction?

 

[Finchbearer]

The King often gets cited as ‘accurate’ but unless we can hop into a Time Machine, it’s really just creative license, plus how can you even compare something that is trying to depict real world historical warfare to orcs battling halflings and dwarves in a fantasy setting?

 

[skip.knox]

Different people are entertained by different things; similarly, different people are put off by different things. However passionately we might feel on the one score or the other, here in discourse at Mythic Scribes, I recommend people refrain from flat out statements of I'm right and you're wrong. An approach that says here is my perspective and my insights, while respecting those of others (or maintaining a discretionary silence) will produce a thread that future readers will find interesting and useful. A thread that is merely acrimonious helps no one.

One other point I wish to make here. Different strokes, as per the above. This applies to readers as well, and those of us who are authors will do well to keep this in mind.

No matter what I write, no matter how thoroughly I research, there will be one or more readers out there who will take exception to something. Indeed, some might even put down my story, even go so far as to write a bad review, because of some aspect or other. All I can do as author is to strive for verisimilitude. I don't even need realism, but I had better make it as believable as possible. For some that means something like historical accuracy. For others it might mean psychological accuracy, or just pronounceable names.

As for Rings of Power, and indeed any and all adaptations, it would do well to keep in mind how very many hands stir such pots. I can readily believe the C-suite executives cynically greenlight a project without caring a snap about whether it stays true to the source or to realism. They're after profits. I suspect that may be a touch unkind.

But there are many other people involved in such productions, and they are not all to be tarred with the same brush. Many try their very best to make a believable set, or write a compelling script, or put their all into their acting. Editors and production designers and musicians, and hundreds more are out there trying to do good work. They are fellow artists. I owe them the same respect and critical honesty I would ask regarding my own work.

 

[Queshire]

Tree people share the same gut bits as us flesh bags? Huh. That's news to me.

 

[skip.knox]

I don't know if Tolkien was very specific on the topic. Sometimes I think of Ents as basically trees that come alive, but other times they seem more like mammals or other fleshy creature but with tree-like appearance. Maybe he says more in some of his other writings, but I've only read the Lord of the Rings.

I rather like that kind of ambiguity. Getting everything explained can feel too pedantic, fodder for rules monkeys. But it's a path difficult to tread, being evocative without being either murky or contradictory.