My villain is God Ithaqua, the White Silence, he has no hierarchy under him. If you are stretching the definition you could say there are two branches under him, the Prime Wendigo, men and women personaly cursed by him, and under them are normal wendigo who were cursed in other ways. Second branch are decentralized cults, they generaly don't get to met their god, and instead focus on "paying off" him and his demons throught blood sacrefice
it's based on nothing and blatant fan-fiction? Show me where, anywhere in the Lord of the Rings, it's even *suggested* that the Witch King "outranks" Saruman.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are way less knowledgable about lotr than you think and I honestly doubt you've even read the books. If anything one could have argued that it isn't made completely clear that the Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr is below the Witchking in terms of rank. Both of them being considerably higher ranking servants than Saruman is out of the question.
>“But they [the men of Rohan] shall help to rebuild Isengard which they have wantonly destroyed, and that shall be Sauron’s, and there his lieutenant shall dwell: not Saruman, but one more worthy of trust … He was to be that Lieutenant, and gather all that remained of the west under his sway; he would be their tyrant and they his slaves.”
2 years ago
Anonymous
that is, at best, inference
which is fine, if you present the chart in the OP as "this is what we can infer"
but that's never how these things go down
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that is, at best, inference
What exactly are you referring to?
I thought Saruman would be higher, like at least under the witch king if not on his level, not under all the other nazguls. He's the master of the second tower after all.
Saruman was distrusted by sauron because he had no perfect control over him like he had about the wraiths since they are all ringbearers and have to follow his orders. When the witchking and the other nazguls checked on saruman and found out gandalf escaped, sarumans life was on the line. The dark lord was always pretty partial towards him and saw him more as a useful idiot then as someone you would trust and give major provinces to
Kinda makes sense from their perspective by what about from Saruman's? He brought a large army on his own and on that cosmic species scale isn't he the same level as Sauron? I'd expect him to try to get a higher rank.
Disclaimer: I'm not very knowledgeable on Tolkien.
Saruman's army was substantially smaller and less competent than Sauron's. I've also seen it argued pretty convincingly (like here https://acoup.blog/2020/06/19/collections-the-battle-of-helms-deep-part-viii-the-mind-of-saruman/) that Sauron planned his war against Gondor on the assumption that Saruman would either lose or betray him.
Here is the real question: how the frick was Saruman able to spend hundreds of years breeding an entire RACE ( Uruk-hai) without the Rohirrim or Gandalf or anyone else noticing?
There is a major flaw with this article: it has the timelines wrong.
First Saruman attacked Rohan and killed thr prince while pretending to be loyal to Sauron, then, unrelated to Uglúk, Sauron discovered that Saruman was lying to him, and this forced Saruman to make a desperate grab for the one ring. What happened was that the wraiths by chance encountered one of Saruman's agents and interrogated them, and found that Saruman lied about not knowing the Shire's location.
I do think it reveals Saruman isn't anywhere near the strategic thinker that Sauron is, though. His position is weak and there's very little he can meaningfully do to really compete with Sauron, given that Sauron begins his assault like a week later.
As an ally, he doesn't offer much except for a small distraction for Gondor's northern ally, which Sauron was already prepared for.
Saruman isn't really part of Sauron's military structure, he is more like a subordinate ally. Like Romania was to Russia in ww1. Saruman was the sovereign of his own state but had pledged his support to Sauron.
I suppose you can think of the wraiths as being extensions of Sauron's will, and not really being independent beings, so in this capacity they "rank higher" than Saruman.
>elder rapist >that low
your army disprespects its veterans, he should be next to the archrapists
unless he is a rapist that rapes the elder, then he is fine where he is
That's not a military hierarchy you fricking moron
Any evil regent must have his vassals, held under him via fear and discipline, but also generosity. For even an evil wizard cannot wage a war entirely on his own. That's something Tolkien was a fricking moron about: He was a common soldier, and spent zero time actually thinking or reading about the way the military is structured the way it is.
First, understand that medieval armies were raised bottom-up, not top-down like they are in modern times. Professional armies literally never happened until very very recently, like "Napoleon" recent. That's the thing that fantasy writers get wrong because of Tolkien's frickup. You start with the lowest manorial lords and their Barons. That's where the local men-at-arms reside, along with knights.
A knight had his (or her if you wanna be inclusive I guess) retainer, and mustered able-bodied peasants from his fiefdom to drill into a regiment. Usually peasants would be spearmen or whatever, and they would be commanded by their local Knights.
Then, the chain follows the order of precedence of knighthood and the chain of noble authority up to the King or regent who mustered the army for war. Then, with everyone organized locally, they'd meet at the muster point and go on campaign in regional units.
This tradition is so commonplace that it lasted up all the way till WWI, where army modernizations and professionalism gave way to national armies. This is the way it has always been
So really, you shouldn't ask about the military hierarchy of your evil emperor. You should be wondering about his vassals and all the various baronies under his control, such that you can organize a structure of Dukes, Counts, Barons, Lords, and Knights, because your military structure is your political structure, more or less.
As an addendum, the only exception to levy armies is mercenary regiments, which is a professional unit commanded by a Colonel who can be pretty much any noble or knight. These are much, much rarer during the medieval era, but get commoner the further you go in time, and the smaller polities you have warring with each other. I highly doubt any mercenary regiments would be needed by an evil emporer, but perhaps they could come in useful for more internal affairs, since they work for pay, not loyalty to a people or region. If you're trying to win over the people of the evil empire via peasant revolts, expect some Local Lord + Men-At-Arm bullshit to come down upon you with mass haste spells and fireballs and shit. Or maybe even a mass charm spell from a particularly powerful mercenary bard to simply sway the mind of the peasants away from wanting to rebel. Evil doesn't have to be comically evil like a fricking Orcish empire, Tolkien's view was decidedly anti-modernistic (or in other words, painfully Ludditic.) The ambiguities of TRUE evil are such that some people really are willing to do the most horrific shit just for a paycheck, because they just don't care.
Orcs are only comically evil because you can't accept our World is centered around Dark Lords creating legions of faceless Orcs to fight their battles.
>He was a common soldier, and spent zero time actually thinking or reading about the way the military is structured the way it is.
Orcs canonically have numbers assigned to them to help with better organisation and more efficient communication, anon. Shitting on Tolkien just because most people on /tg/ like him does not make you seem smart or original >I’ll give your name and number to the Nazgûl’, said the soldier lowering his voice to a hiss.
The orc-armies of Mordor as not the chaotic mob you remember them to be from watching the movies
Filtered
I'm not talking about tactical organization, I'm talking battalion and higher echelons of military organization. Worrying about the tactics of a fictional military is bizarre and hardly something you'd want to worry about (unless you're turbo WHFRPing or some shit)
>That's something Tolkien was a fricking moron about: He was a common soldier, and spent zero time actually thinking or reading about the way the military is structured the way it is.
Stopped reading there.
>2nd Lefttenant, Signal Operator >Got sent home because of the sniffles
WOW BATTLE HARDENED STUDENT OF WAR HE IS
>2nd Lefttenant, Signal Operator >Got sent home because of the sniffles >WOW BATTLE HARDENED STUDENT OF WAR HE IS
Well he sure as hell would have kicked your spergy ass
[...]
Prove you've read his books in 5 seconds. I'll wait ...
If you want to continue jerking off some dead guy who wrote a book about WW2 hurting his /comfy/ ideal of Britain then don't b***h about the stagnation of D&D and of the fantasy genre in general
But personally, I'll leave Tolkien in the past. The world has moved on a lot since WWII, and the themes presented in his works are antiquated and wholly irrelevant today
As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say great-power adventure stories where there are clearly defined poles of "good and evil" is not only antique, it's positively alien to the homogenizing world we live in today. I'd say that people are more interested in the axis between law & chaos now, which is definitely avoided by any of Tolkien's shit
I think some themes that are more interesting to explore would be >Opressive state vs disorganized rebels >Religious unity vs diverse paganistic acceptance >Orderly but banal civilization vs Brutal, unforgiving wilderness
I'd disagree. I think Tolkien's themes of the horror of industrialized war are still relevant, if not as shocking as his day. I think the themes of good coming from small places are very relevant and important. I think also WAY more religious people could learn from how he takes inspiration from his religion without eulogizing to his audience (lewis) and appealing to a universal audience. I think also authors could learn from how Tolkien tells a story without everything going to keikaku (the ring switches bearers largely due to a series of coincidences). I'd say the only really outdated parts are his purposefully outdated appeals to medieval times. And on a modern political point, I think more people could learn about the theme of how the most close minded hobbits are the most likely to suck off sarumans dick when he comes to set up a dictatorship, rather than the weird hobbits who want to go on adventures with elves and dwarves.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I think also WAY more religious people could learn from how he takes inspiration from his religion without eulogizing to his audience
Only if you include SJW ideologue cultists when you're referring to religious people. I've had more media try to preach to me why it's okay to frick kids than try to tell me god is great as of late.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well maybe you should stop watching OAN then
2 years ago
Anonymous
On the other hand I can't think of any Christian works of late that try to utilize christian themes in them unless they are trying to eulogize. Only exceptions are Japanese stuff that are just stealing the aesthetic. And the lords of shadow castlevania games which are a japanese series but had western devs.
Also most pro kid fricking stuff I've seen is also from japan, unless you want to cite something specific instead of pulling culture war facts out of thin air.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> pulling culture war facts out of thin air.
Name 3 fantasy video games, books, or movies made in the last 20 years that tried to shove Christianity down your throat, meanwhile I can name infinity they had modern SJW politics in them
>But personally, I'll leave Tolkien in the past. The world has moved on a lot since WWII, and the themes presented in his works are antiquated and wholly irrelevant today
Ywnbaw
>2nd Lefttenant, Signal Operator >Got sent home because of the sniffles >WOW BATTLE HARDENED STUDENT OF WAR HE IS
Well he sure as hell would have kicked your spergy ass
>That's something Tolkien was a fricking moron about: He was a common soldier, and spent zero time actually thinking or reading about the way the military is structured the way it is.
>medieval armies were raised bottom-up, not top-down
Medieval armies also weren't led by immortal god-necromancers that can create rings which turn people into undead servants, they neither had wall-blasting explosives, black wizard ghosts riding on dragons or industrialized weapon production
As an addendum, the only exception to levy armies is mercenary regiments, which is a professional unit commanded by a Colonel who can be pretty much any noble or knight. These are much, much rarer during the medieval era, but get commoner the further you go in time, and the smaller polities you have warring with each other. I highly doubt any mercenary regiments would be needed by an evil emporer, but perhaps they could come in useful for more internal affairs, since they work for pay, not loyalty to a people or region. If you're trying to win over the people of the evil empire via peasant revolts, expect some Local Lord + Men-At-Arm bullshit to come down upon you with mass haste spells and fireballs and shit. Or maybe even a mass charm spell from a particularly powerful mercenary bard to simply sway the mind of the peasants away from wanting to rebel. Evil doesn't have to be comically evil like a fricking Orcish empire, Tolkien's view was decidedly anti-modernistic (or in other words, painfully Ludditic.) The ambiguities of TRUE evil are such that some people really are willing to do the most horrific shit just for a paycheck, because they just don't care.
Prove you've read his books in 5 seconds. I'll wait ...
The forces of Sauron having modern organisation is a feature not a bug you simpleton, did you some how miss all the other markers of the industrial they're packing?
>A knight had his (or her if you wanna be inclusive I guess) retainer, and mustered able-bodied peasants from his fiefdom to drill into a regiment. Usually peasants would be spearmen or whatever, and they would be commanded by their local Knights. >Literally believes in peasant conscripts
Oh you're just totally wrong about everything aren't you?
Not him, but peasent conscripts aren’t real? Surely a medieval 1000-1400 ad army wasn’t just all men at arms and knights? Who was the bulk of the army? I thought free peasants who weren’t serfs (in most kingdoms) had to attend military training a few days a year and also buy themselves a helmet, some body armor and a shield and spear and be ready to be drafted.
Who tf served as the bulk of a feudal army then? Can’t be all freemen since they lived in cities and didn’t join lords armies or obey lords.
There were very few freemen in the middle ages, it was 90% serfs. Most peasant conscripts just had to take whatever sharp farming tools they had when they went to war. Later on as armies got more proffessional the crown would pay for cheap uniforms and spears. But the norm was to pay for your own weapons. It's what gave the nobility such power, they could afford weapons, armor and horses and were vital to the armies if the king who could afford to shell those out.
>the Europeans would fall for it!!!!1!1!1
The mongols got BTFO by the Europeans and barely made it into Europe. They absolutely raped china and the entire Muslim world, save for Africa.
Europe only got off because Ghenghis Khan died of a nosebleed just as they were entering the region. And the splinter hordes would remain a thorn in the side of eastern europe basically until the industrial revolution.
> pulling culture war facts out of thin air.
Name 3 fantasy video games, books, or movies made in the last 20 years that tried to shove Christianity down your throat, meanwhile I can name infinity they had modern SJW politics in them
Most fantasy settings dont bother with overt religious themes, cause they are about fantasy religions usually. But whenever I see a work trying to present itself as some sort of christian work, let's say the gods not dead films which were the highest grossing films of their kind, it's very much a eulogy setting.
If you'd like to name five sjw settings go ahead. Or you could also name five works with major christian themes that aren't trying to preach to the choir.
>Most peasant conscripts just had to take whatever sharp farming tools they had when they went to war
This didn’t happen though. Medieval armies weren’t composed of poor peasants with farming tools. I’m asking who was the bulk of a medieval army then? It wasn’t peasants with farming tools and it wasn’t knights and their private semi-professional retinues
The core would be the knights in armor, armored cavalry especially whenever they could be afforded. The bulk would be levy conscripts. Now they wouldn't always be just farmers with pitchforks, though that was common. The famous Welsh longbow men for instance, who provided their own bows and were quite skilled, but were otherwise normal welshman with day jobs (their skill was so great that the king outlawed the damaging of any welshman hand so they could be conscripted as bowmen).
Other than sometimes you'd hire mercenary companies, usually they were spearman as spears are cheap, but some would use other weapons.
But the basis remained the knights. The strategy was usually to send in charging knights hopefully to scatter enemy forces, then send in everyone else (sometimes with arrow volleys to soften up armies) and skirmish until one side retreats. Also remember most soldiers died of disease until WW1, so inflicting casualties isn't the goal. Breaking an armies morale is the goal. And remember individual valor is considered the key to war.
This is how it worked among the Gondorians and Rohirrim, but Mordor had a professional army. They were actually very well organized. You can call it an anachronism, but Sauron was obsessed with creating a new world according to his order, which he saw superior to the chaotic and backwards ways of the mortal races.
P.S. Also Tolkien was influenced by WW1 and Gondor vs Mordor basically represents the old chivalric ideal, of heroic countrymen and noble knights, against an industrialized, faceless modern army where people die in ditches.
Napoleons era is an exaggeration. But military history can be summed up thusly-
-tribal warbands, basically getting all the boys with any weapons on hand for quick raids
-mass conscripts, taking every man in the city to attack or defend, common in early Mesopotamia and very costly as no-one is shelling out for weapons and the men have day jobs
-the citizen-soldier, innovated by Greece where citizens would pay for their own weapons. While they had day jobs, the duty to defend brought with it political power, so each citizen was invested in the defense of their city.
-proffessional armies, the Roman's took the idea of the citizen soldier by offering land and citizenship to anyone who joined. This massively swelled their ranks, made the military a viable career for politics or settling down to farm. Thus people can afford to join the army and think up tactics. In addition governments were centralized enough to pay wages and for equipment. This faltered as later rome went bankrupt and generals paid armies out of pocket.
-knights and levies, with romes fall, kingdoms had no money to pay for equipment. So nobles ponied up their own money for swords and armor and kept money through land ownership, and in theory could spend all day training for war. But knights are few in number, so these forces would be bolstered by levies amongst the commoners, these levies have day jobs, meaning war often has to pause for harvest, otherwise nobles can't tax their peasants.
-semi-proffesional armies, as kingdoms got more centralized and made more money through global trade, standing armies became common. Underfunded sure, but there. Army work was inglorious, but at least a wage was there even if it sucked. And you didn't have to supply your own weapons. But armies were often supported by mercenaries or militias still to fill out the gaps, and in most places a 'professional' nonle class remained
-proffessional armies, by the end if the early modern era, numbers and supply are key, so the entire army is supplied and paid for by the state, though some nobles continued to bring some extra goodies when they could afford it. Pay still sucks, but one can advance through the ranks and make a career of being in the military. Training is irregular but it exists.
This basically continues until the mechanization if war, but the importance of a standing army is known by all at this point, and is possible from the increased centralization of government.
-proffessional armies, by the end if the early modern era, numbers and supply are key, so the entire army is supplied and paid for by the state, though some nobles continued to bring some extra goodies when they could afford it. Pay still sucks, but one can advance through the ranks and make a career of being in the military. Training is irregular but it exists.
This basically continues until the mechanization if war, but the importance of a standing army is known by all at this point, and is possible from the increased centralization of government.
That's fine and all, but Sauron isn't a medieval lord, he's an ancient fallen angel sorcerer and his armies are the corrupted creations of a dark god. >medieval armies were raised bottom-up, not top-down
No they weren't, you mongoloid. Kings gave nobles land and exempted them from taxes, and in exchange the nobles bought fighting equipment and hired men at arms to fight for the king, and gave land to non-nobles so they would train and equip themselves and fight in his personal army. "Peasants" (tenant farmers) weren't included in this arrangement unless the country was getting invaded big time.
You know, a pet peeve of mine is treating medieval militaries like they are modern proffessional militaries. On the one hand I get theres much more things you can do with a proffessional military, talking about supply lines, strategies, and chain of command. On the other it's a really glaring anachronism to me for an era where most soldiers were conscripted farmers, they didn't get paid and had to loot to make some sort of money, had to live off the land and individual valor, not tactics or strategy was considered the most important factor in war.
When the Mongols came into europe they steamrolled their armies as they would promote on merit, not birth, and would fake retreats that europeans would fall for every time, because they couldn't comprehend an enemy retreating for anything other than they were routed.
>When the Mongols came into europe they steamrolled their armies as they would promote on merit, not birth, and would fake retreats that europeans would fall for every time, because they couldn't comprehend an enemy retreating for anything other than they were routed.
To be fair, Mongols were legit giga pussies.
I mean maybe if you were china and were used to centuries of them just being there not doing anything. But if you are european and your only experience with them is conquering the frick out of everyone, you'd think you'd catch on after the fourth or so fake retreat.
>the Europeans would fall for it!!!!1!1!1
The mongols got BTFO by the Europeans and barely made it into Europe. They absolutely raped china and the entire Muslim world, save for Africa.
The Nine Liches each control a direct number of Ironbound generals, who in tern delegate their direct will to the corporeal undead under that Lich's thrall. But the Irinvound have no real power of their own, and are partially sustained by the Lich, unlike the corporeals, kill the Lich (and I mean KILL, not just defeat) and you drastically weaken the Ironbound until they can be enthralled by another, and the corporeals regain their autonomy (though many ho feral).
My big bad is pretty hands off, because they're busy preparing for a ritual to ascend to God hood. But they have some caster advisors (necromancy wizard and death cleric) to raise their skeleton army and an oath breaker paladin to lead it into battles.
My what's what? You're making a lot of assumptions here pal, and I don't like it!
My villain is God Ithaqua, the White Silence, he has no hierarchy under him. If you are stretching the definition you could say there are two branches under him, the Prime Wendigo, men and women personaly cursed by him, and under them are normal wendigo who were cursed in other ways. Second branch are decentralized cults, they generaly don't get to met their god, and instead focus on "paying off" him and his demons throught blood sacrefice
"Horde"
same
That's just an attempt at fitting all the named bad guys from LotR into some sort of structure, nothing close to comprehensive or explicit.
So where's you specific criticism of that chart? Just shitting on something like this in a general way is easy
just ignore him
but he's right
I'm pretty sure "he" is (You) anon. So where exactly is the problem with this chart?
>inb4 he stays silent
it's based on nothing and blatant fan-fiction? Show me where, anywhere in the Lord of the Rings, it's even *suggested* that the Witch King "outranks" Saruman.
You are way less knowledgable about lotr than you think and I honestly doubt you've even read the books. If anything one could have argued that it isn't made completely clear that the Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr is below the Witchking in terms of rank. Both of them being considerably higher ranking servants than Saruman is out of the question.
>“But they [the men of Rohan] shall help to rebuild Isengard which they have wantonly destroyed, and that shall be Sauron’s, and there his lieutenant shall dwell: not Saruman, but one more worthy of trust … He was to be that Lieutenant, and gather all that remained of the west under his sway; he would be their tyrant and they his slaves.”
that is, at best, inference
which is fine, if you present the chart in the OP as "this is what we can infer"
but that's never how these things go down
>that is, at best, inference
What exactly are you referring to?
>Her
>The various regents or warlord types that are her children
>Their own respective militaries which differ based on culture and society
I thought Saruman would be higher, like at least under the witch king if not on his level, not under all the other nazguls. He's the master of the second tower after all.
Saruman was distrusted by sauron because he had no perfect control over him like he had about the wraiths since they are all ringbearers and have to follow his orders. When the witchking and the other nazguls checked on saruman and found out gandalf escaped, sarumans life was on the line. The dark lord was always pretty partial towards him and saw him more as a useful idiot then as someone you would trust and give major provinces to
Kinda makes sense from their perspective by what about from Saruman's? He brought a large army on his own and on that cosmic species scale isn't he the same level as Sauron? I'd expect him to try to get a higher rank.
Disclaimer: I'm not very knowledgeable on Tolkien.
strenght does not equal military rank
Saruman's army was substantially smaller and less competent than Sauron's. I've also seen it argued pretty convincingly (like here https://acoup.blog/2020/06/19/collections-the-battle-of-helms-deep-part-viii-the-mind-of-saruman/) that Sauron planned his war against Gondor on the assumption that Saruman would either lose or betray him.
Here is the real question: how the frick was Saruman able to spend hundreds of years breeding an entire RACE ( Uruk-hai) without the Rohirrim or Gandalf or anyone else noticing?
Better questions is why did he do it in the first place when black uruks have already been a thing
There is a major flaw with this article: it has the timelines wrong.
First Saruman attacked Rohan and killed thr prince while pretending to be loyal to Sauron, then, unrelated to Uglúk, Sauron discovered that Saruman was lying to him, and this forced Saruman to make a desperate grab for the one ring. What happened was that the wraiths by chance encountered one of Saruman's agents and interrogated them, and found that Saruman lied about not knowing the Shire's location.
So Saruman wasn't stupid, just desperate.
I do think it reveals Saruman isn't anywhere near the strategic thinker that Sauron is, though. His position is weak and there's very little he can meaningfully do to really compete with Sauron, given that Sauron begins his assault like a week later.
As an ally, he doesn't offer much except for a small distraction for Gondor's northern ally, which Sauron was already prepared for.
Saruman isn't really part of Sauron's military structure, he is more like a subordinate ally. Like Romania was to Russia in ww1. Saruman was the sovereign of his own state but had pledged his support to Sauron.
I suppose you can think of the wraiths as being extensions of Sauron's will, and not really being independent beings, so in this capacity they "rank higher" than Saruman.
Big Dick One=>Big Dick Two=>Archrapists=>Rape General=>Molestation Captain=>Elder Rapist=>Consent Taker=>Rapist=>Raped
here's a call for you
>elder rapist
>that low
your army disprespects its veterans, he should be next to the archrapists
unless he is a rapist that rapes the elder, then he is fine where he is
Its based partially on who they are willing to rape, there is still debate among the ranks whether necrophilia and zoophilia count as rape too
How do I join?
democratic
Depends on their tax policy.
That's not a military hierarchy you fricking moron
Any evil regent must have his vassals, held under him via fear and discipline, but also generosity. For even an evil wizard cannot wage a war entirely on his own. That's something Tolkien was a fricking moron about: He was a common soldier, and spent zero time actually thinking or reading about the way the military is structured the way it is.
First, understand that medieval armies were raised bottom-up, not top-down like they are in modern times. Professional armies literally never happened until very very recently, like "Napoleon" recent. That's the thing that fantasy writers get wrong because of Tolkien's frickup. You start with the lowest manorial lords and their Barons. That's where the local men-at-arms reside, along with knights.
A knight had his (or her if you wanna be inclusive I guess) retainer, and mustered able-bodied peasants from his fiefdom to drill into a regiment. Usually peasants would be spearmen or whatever, and they would be commanded by their local Knights.
Then, the chain follows the order of precedence of knighthood and the chain of noble authority up to the King or regent who mustered the army for war. Then, with everyone organized locally, they'd meet at the muster point and go on campaign in regional units.
This tradition is so commonplace that it lasted up all the way till WWI, where army modernizations and professionalism gave way to national armies. This is the way it has always been
So really, you shouldn't ask about the military hierarchy of your evil emperor. You should be wondering about his vassals and all the various baronies under his control, such that you can organize a structure of Dukes, Counts, Barons, Lords, and Knights, because your military structure is your political structure, more or less.
As an addendum, the only exception to levy armies is mercenary regiments, which is a professional unit commanded by a Colonel who can be pretty much any noble or knight. These are much, much rarer during the medieval era, but get commoner the further you go in time, and the smaller polities you have warring with each other. I highly doubt any mercenary regiments would be needed by an evil emporer, but perhaps they could come in useful for more internal affairs, since they work for pay, not loyalty to a people or region. If you're trying to win over the people of the evil empire via peasant revolts, expect some Local Lord + Men-At-Arm bullshit to come down upon you with mass haste spells and fireballs and shit. Or maybe even a mass charm spell from a particularly powerful mercenary bard to simply sway the mind of the peasants away from wanting to rebel. Evil doesn't have to be comically evil like a fricking Orcish empire, Tolkien's view was decidedly anti-modernistic (or in other words, painfully Ludditic.) The ambiguities of TRUE evil are such that some people really are willing to do the most horrific shit just for a paycheck, because they just don't care.
Orcs are only comically evil because you can't accept our World is centered around Dark Lords creating legions of faceless Orcs to fight their battles.
>you fricking moron
rude! watch your language
>He was a common soldier, and spent zero time actually thinking or reading about the way the military is structured the way it is.
Orcs canonically have numbers assigned to them to help with better organisation and more efficient communication, anon. Shitting on Tolkien just because most people on /tg/ like him does not make you seem smart or original
>I’ll give your name and number to the Nazgûl’, said the soldier lowering his voice to a hiss.
The orc-armies of Mordor as not the chaotic mob you remember them to be from watching the movies
*are
Filtered
I'm not talking about tactical organization, I'm talking battalion and higher echelons of military organization. Worrying about the tactics of a fictional military is bizarre and hardly something you'd want to worry about (unless you're turbo WHFRPing or some shit)
>2nd Lefttenant, Signal Operator
>Got sent home because of the sniffles
WOW BATTLE HARDENED STUDENT OF WAR HE IS
This website is for adults only. Consider going back
If you want to continue jerking off some dead guy who wrote a book about WW2 hurting his /comfy/ ideal of Britain then don't b***h about the stagnation of D&D and of the fantasy genre in general
But personally, I'll leave Tolkien in the past. The world has moved on a lot since WWII, and the themes presented in his works are antiquated and wholly irrelevant today
As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say great-power adventure stories where there are clearly defined poles of "good and evil" is not only antique, it's positively alien to the homogenizing world we live in today. I'd say that people are more interested in the axis between law & chaos now, which is definitely avoided by any of Tolkien's shit
I think some themes that are more interesting to explore would be
>Opressive state vs disorganized rebels
>Religious unity vs diverse paganistic acceptance
>Orderly but banal civilization vs Brutal, unforgiving wilderness
this is bait
I believe you man, but damn this looks like something they'd write.
hopefully so
all of the examples you gave are overdone as hell
I'd disagree. I think Tolkien's themes of the horror of industrialized war are still relevant, if not as shocking as his day. I think the themes of good coming from small places are very relevant and important. I think also WAY more religious people could learn from how he takes inspiration from his religion without eulogizing to his audience (lewis) and appealing to a universal audience. I think also authors could learn from how Tolkien tells a story without everything going to keikaku (the ring switches bearers largely due to a series of coincidences). I'd say the only really outdated parts are his purposefully outdated appeals to medieval times. And on a modern political point, I think more people could learn about the theme of how the most close minded hobbits are the most likely to suck off sarumans dick when he comes to set up a dictatorship, rather than the weird hobbits who want to go on adventures with elves and dwarves.
>I think also WAY more religious people could learn from how he takes inspiration from his religion without eulogizing to his audience
Only if you include SJW ideologue cultists when you're referring to religious people. I've had more media try to preach to me why it's okay to frick kids than try to tell me god is great as of late.
Well maybe you should stop watching OAN then
On the other hand I can't think of any Christian works of late that try to utilize christian themes in them unless they are trying to eulogize. Only exceptions are Japanese stuff that are just stealing the aesthetic. And the lords of shadow castlevania games which are a japanese series but had western devs.
Also most pro kid fricking stuff I've seen is also from japan, unless you want to cite something specific instead of pulling culture war facts out of thin air.
> pulling culture war facts out of thin air.
Name 3 fantasy video games, books, or movies made in the last 20 years that tried to shove Christianity down your throat, meanwhile I can name infinity they had modern SJW politics in them
>But personally, I'll leave Tolkien in the past. The world has moved on a lot since WWII, and the themes presented in his works are antiquated and wholly irrelevant today
Ywnbaw
lol imagine feeling unironically threatened by a dead writer
you've failed the test
>2nd Lefttenant, Signal Operator
>Got sent home because of the sniffles
>WOW BATTLE HARDENED STUDENT OF WAR HE IS
Well he sure as hell would have kicked your spergy ass
>That's something Tolkien was a fricking moron about: He was a common soldier, and spent zero time actually thinking or reading about the way the military is structured the way it is.
Stopped reading there.
>medieval armies were raised bottom-up, not top-down
Medieval armies also weren't led by immortal god-necromancers that can create rings which turn people into undead servants, they neither had wall-blasting explosives, black wizard ghosts riding on dragons or industrialized weapon production
Prove you've read his books in 5 seconds. I'll wait ...
The forces of Sauron having modern organisation is a feature not a bug you simpleton, did you some how miss all the other markers of the industrial they're packing?
>A knight had his (or her if you wanna be inclusive I guess) retainer, and mustered able-bodied peasants from his fiefdom to drill into a regiment. Usually peasants would be spearmen or whatever, and they would be commanded by their local Knights.
>Literally believes in peasant conscripts
Oh you're just totally wrong about everything aren't you?
Not him, but peasent conscripts aren’t real? Surely a medieval 1000-1400 ad army wasn’t just all men at arms and knights? Who was the bulk of the army? I thought free peasants who weren’t serfs (in most kingdoms) had to attend military training a few days a year and also buy themselves a helmet, some body armor and a shield and spear and be ready to be drafted.
Who tf served as the bulk of a feudal army then? Can’t be all freemen since they lived in cities and didn’t join lords armies or obey lords.
There were very few freemen in the middle ages, it was 90% serfs. Most peasant conscripts just had to take whatever sharp farming tools they had when they went to war. Later on as armies got more proffessional the crown would pay for cheap uniforms and spears. But the norm was to pay for your own weapons. It's what gave the nobility such power, they could afford weapons, armor and horses and were vital to the armies if the king who could afford to shell those out.
Europe only got off because Ghenghis Khan died of a nosebleed just as they were entering the region. And the splinter hordes would remain a thorn in the side of eastern europe basically until the industrial revolution.
Most fantasy settings dont bother with overt religious themes, cause they are about fantasy religions usually. But whenever I see a work trying to present itself as some sort of christian work, let's say the gods not dead films which were the highest grossing films of their kind, it's very much a eulogy setting.
If you'd like to name five sjw settings go ahead. Or you could also name five works with major christian themes that aren't trying to preach to the choir.
>Most peasant conscripts just had to take whatever sharp farming tools they had when they went to war
This didn’t happen though. Medieval armies weren’t composed of poor peasants with farming tools. I’m asking who was the bulk of a medieval army then? It wasn’t peasants with farming tools and it wasn’t knights and their private semi-professional retinues
The core would be the knights in armor, armored cavalry especially whenever they could be afforded. The bulk would be levy conscripts. Now they wouldn't always be just farmers with pitchforks, though that was common. The famous Welsh longbow men for instance, who provided their own bows and were quite skilled, but were otherwise normal welshman with day jobs (their skill was so great that the king outlawed the damaging of any welshman hand so they could be conscripted as bowmen).
Other than sometimes you'd hire mercenary companies, usually they were spearman as spears are cheap, but some would use other weapons.
But the basis remained the knights. The strategy was usually to send in charging knights hopefully to scatter enemy forces, then send in everyone else (sometimes with arrow volleys to soften up armies) and skirmish until one side retreats. Also remember most soldiers died of disease until WW1, so inflicting casualties isn't the goal. Breaking an armies morale is the goal. And remember individual valor is considered the key to war.
This is how it worked among the Gondorians and Rohirrim, but Mordor had a professional army. They were actually very well organized. You can call it an anachronism, but Sauron was obsessed with creating a new world according to his order, which he saw superior to the chaotic and backwards ways of the mortal races.
P.S. Also Tolkien was influenced by WW1 and Gondor vs Mordor basically represents the old chivalric ideal, of heroic countrymen and noble knights, against an industrialized, faceless modern army where people die in ditches.
>Medieval Technology Level=Feudalism-like Government For Everyone
moron
Yeah but people never really bother to justify why militaries would be more advanced than irl.
>Professional armies literally never happened until very very recently, like "Napoleon" recent.
the obvious exception is roman legions, I suspect there are others.
Napoleons era is an exaggeration. But military history can be summed up thusly-
-tribal warbands, basically getting all the boys with any weapons on hand for quick raids
-mass conscripts, taking every man in the city to attack or defend, common in early Mesopotamia and very costly as no-one is shelling out for weapons and the men have day jobs
-the citizen-soldier, innovated by Greece where citizens would pay for their own weapons. While they had day jobs, the duty to defend brought with it political power, so each citizen was invested in the defense of their city.
-proffessional armies, the Roman's took the idea of the citizen soldier by offering land and citizenship to anyone who joined. This massively swelled their ranks, made the military a viable career for politics or settling down to farm. Thus people can afford to join the army and think up tactics. In addition governments were centralized enough to pay wages and for equipment. This faltered as later rome went bankrupt and generals paid armies out of pocket.
-knights and levies, with romes fall, kingdoms had no money to pay for equipment. So nobles ponied up their own money for swords and armor and kept money through land ownership, and in theory could spend all day training for war. But knights are few in number, so these forces would be bolstered by levies amongst the commoners, these levies have day jobs, meaning war often has to pause for harvest, otherwise nobles can't tax their peasants.
-semi-proffesional armies, as kingdoms got more centralized and made more money through global trade, standing armies became common. Underfunded sure, but there. Army work was inglorious, but at least a wage was there even if it sucked. And you didn't have to supply your own weapons. But armies were often supported by mercenaries or militias still to fill out the gaps, and in most places a 'professional' nonle class remained
-proffessional armies, by the end if the early modern era, numbers and supply are key, so the entire army is supplied and paid for by the state, though some nobles continued to bring some extra goodies when they could afford it. Pay still sucks, but one can advance through the ranks and make a career of being in the military. Training is irregular but it exists.
This basically continues until the mechanization if war, but the importance of a standing army is known by all at this point, and is possible from the increased centralization of government.
please post this on Ganker
why?
That's fine and all, but Sauron isn't a medieval lord, he's an ancient fallen angel sorcerer and his armies are the corrupted creations of a dark god.
>medieval armies were raised bottom-up, not top-down
No they weren't, you mongoloid. Kings gave nobles land and exempted them from taxes, and in exchange the nobles bought fighting equipment and hired men at arms to fight for the king, and gave land to non-nobles so they would train and equip themselves and fight in his personal army. "Peasants" (tenant farmers) weren't included in this arrangement unless the country was getting invaded big time.
t "tolkien scholar"
You know, a pet peeve of mine is treating medieval militaries like they are modern proffessional militaries. On the one hand I get theres much more things you can do with a proffessional military, talking about supply lines, strategies, and chain of command. On the other it's a really glaring anachronism to me for an era where most soldiers were conscripted farmers, they didn't get paid and had to loot to make some sort of money, had to live off the land and individual valor, not tactics or strategy was considered the most important factor in war.
When the Mongols came into europe they steamrolled their armies as they would promote on merit, not birth, and would fake retreats that europeans would fall for every time, because they couldn't comprehend an enemy retreating for anything other than they were routed.
>When the Mongols came into europe they steamrolled their armies as they would promote on merit, not birth, and would fake retreats that europeans would fall for every time, because they couldn't comprehend an enemy retreating for anything other than they were routed.
To be fair, Mongols were legit giga pussies.
I mean maybe if you were china and were used to centuries of them just being there not doing anything. But if you are european and your only experience with them is conquering the frick out of everyone, you'd think you'd catch on after the fourth or so fake retreat.
>the Europeans would fall for it!!!!1!1!1
The mongols got BTFO by the Europeans and barely made it into Europe. They absolutely raped china and the entire Muslim world, save for Africa.
The Nine Liches each control a direct number of Ironbound generals, who in tern delegate their direct will to the corporeal undead under that Lich's thrall. But the Irinvound have no real power of their own, and are partially sustained by the Lich, unlike the corporeals, kill the Lich (and I mean KILL, not just defeat) and you drastically weaken the Ironbound until they can be enthralled by another, and the corporeals regain their autonomy (though many ho feral).
It's a valid chart. Haters gonna hate.
>people who haven't read tolkiens body of work discussing itt
none he's an anarchist
My big bad is pretty hands off, because they're busy preparing for a ritual to ascend to God hood. But they have some caster advisors (necromancy wizard and death cleric) to raise their skeleton army and an oath breaker paladin to lead it into battles.
might makes right