10

I've read about quite a few prodigious archers in Middle-earth: Beleg, Legolas, Rangers like Aragorn (not sure about this one) as well as other Men of Gondor, Easterlings (not sure where I've seen anything about them, actually) and Bard.

Main question:
Who (according to Tolkien) was the greatest archer from each race?

Bonus question:
Was there a single archer (of any race) who Tolkien esteemed above all others?

V2Blast
  • 234
  • 5
  • 13
AJL
  • 2,237
  • 2
  • 19
  • 28
  • 5
    You're going to need to give us some criteria as to what defines "best". Accuracy? Distance? Kills? Flaire? – phantom42 May 23 '15 at 19:14
  • Maybe Tom Bombadil. – TZHX May 23 '15 at 19:17
  • 13
    That pretty blonde girl in the films seems quite handy with a bow. – Valorum May 23 '15 at 19:20
  • The problem is trying to compare apples with oranges. Who is the most lethal ≠ who is the most accurate ≠ who can shoot the farthest, etc. – Valorum May 23 '15 at 22:53
  • If you count legendary times, then probably Orome. – b_jonas May 24 '15 at 08:53
  • 1
    @Richard - who can shoot the farthest would depend on the bow strength (known in archery as "draw weight", IIRC), not the archer's skill. If the best archer in the world is using a weak bow, he won't shoot as far as a first timer with a much stronger bow, as long as the first timer is strong enough to draw the stronger bow properly. I think we can assume that the best archer in Middle-earth would be the one who is most effective/accurate in battle conditions. Being able to hit a bullseye on a practice range is very different from hitting moving targets that are trying to kill you. – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 17:57
  • @WadCheber - No, but a skilled archer with a quality bow can shoot farther than an unskilled archer with any kind of bow. – Valorum May 24 '15 at 18:12
  • @Richard - I said a weak bow. Not a quality bow. And even if a skilled archer had a high quality weak bow and a novice had a high quality strong bow, the novice would still probably shoot farther. No amount of skill can change the fact that a stronger bow imparts more force than a weaker one. As long as the novice avoids hitting the ground or firing at a ridiculously high/low angle, the arrow will fly faster and farther because the bow snaps the string back with far more energy. English longbowmen and Native Americans were both skilled, but the longbow shot farther because of its strength – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 18:40
  • 1
    @Richard - archaeologists digging in Medieval English cemeteries find skeletons with deformed right arm bones. These are archers who used longbows. The draw weight was insane - hundreds of pounds of force was needed to draw them, compared to an average draw weight of 60 lbs or less on modern bows - and the men who used them were mutants with one ridiculously strong arm. Those bows fired farther than Native American bows, not because of skill, but because of the inherent strength of the bow. – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 18:45
  • 1
    @WadCheber - So nothing to do with the legal requirement that all English men must practice archery at least weekly then? Or the fact that Indian bows were intended primarily to kill game rather than as instruments of war? – Valorum May 24 '15 at 18:47
  • @Richard - the first point you make supports my cause, because that requirement was a reflection of the fact that normal people couldn't use longbows - you needed almost superhuman strength to draw them. But the men who used them in battle were deformed as a result. And your second point also supports my argument- you are admitting that the bow makes the difference, not the archer. – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 18:52
  • As far as I have read, and I have read a lot about this, that law was rarely enforced, and the men who usually used longbows in combat didn't need to be told to practice. It was also illegal to carry or send longbows overseas (except when you were going to war and needed to use them in combat), because the bows were so unique. – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 18:55
  • Practice increases accuracy and rate of fire, and in the case of longbows, it gives you the strength needed to draw the bow, but distance/range has much more to do with draw weight than skill. Practice all you want with a weak bow - it has a maximum range that will never increase, no matter how much you practice with it. But if you switch to a stronger bow, you will instantly shoot farther. – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 19:01
  • I cannot share the criticism this question receives. Training with a bow will increase both accuracy and speed and the best shot is the one who would win in an imaginary contest. In an imaginary contest the range would be so selected that every bow is inside the range. Accuracy would be the most important quality, speed the second quality. The counterarguments sound for me like "Usain Bolt is not the fastest man because we don't know how he runs over a lawn/rubber mat. Or that he must carry 50 kg. Or the distance is 420 m. Or that he must run barefoot". – Thorsten S. May 24 '15 at 19:09
  • @ThorstenS. - the ongoing conversation Richard and I are having isn't criticism of the question. It is a discussion about whether the relevant factor in determining an archer's range is skill or draw weight. Which means that it is off topic. – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 19:15
  • @WadCheber phantom42 and Richard tried to set up several standards for "best" in the beginning. The draw weight determines the range, but "skill" is important because training automatically develops the muscle groups you need to shoot a bow even if you only go for accuracy. And they are very specific; even a strong man will have problems to draw a strong bow if he has no training. Technical quality is another factor: Compound bows will defeat composite bows always because they are using non-linear draw weight. – Thorsten S. May 24 '15 at 19:23
  • @ThorstenS. - but we can assume that compound bows don't exist in Middle-earth. I personally assume the inhabitants of Middle-earth use self bows, not composite bows. It just seems more thematically consistent. A strong man with no training will have trouble drawing a heavy bow, but a weak man with training will be unable to draw it at all. An Olympic archery champion would probably be incapable of drawing the heavier longbows, regardless of his skill with compound bows. – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 19:27
  • @ThorstenS. - By the same token, an Olympic sharpshooter would miss far more often in combat because he is used to shooting targets, not people, and targets never shoot back at you, but people do. When bullets or arrows are coming your way, firing accurately becomes much harder. Conditions have a dramatic effect on performance. So does equipment. A competitive archer who can shoot the wings off a fly in practice won't be as effective in battle as an archer who doesn't perform as well in practice but is used to battlefield conditions. – Wad Cheber May 24 '15 at 19:32

2 Answers2

17

Elves

The greatest Elf bowman appears to be Duilin of Gondolin, an Elf-lord of Gondolin and chief of the House of the Swallow

In his "Unfinished Tales", Tolkien specifically refers to him as being a soldier of impeccable physical prowess and has this to say about his abilities with a bow;

Now the folk of the Swallow bore a fan of feathers on their helms, and they were arrayed in white and dark blue and in purple and black and showed an arrowhead on their shields. Their lord was Duilin, swiftest of all men to run and leap and surest of archers at a mark.

Beleg Cuthalion(A.K.A. "Beleg the Archer", A.K.A. "Beleg Strongbow") is also repeatedly called out as being an exceptional archer and possessing the ability to fire arrows great distances:

Moreover Beleg the Archer was great among the people of Doriath; he was strong, and enduring, and far-sighted in mind as well as eye, and at need he was valiant in battle, relying not only upon the swift arrows of his long bow, but also upon his great sword Anglachel (needed only by an archer because the orcs were so many). And ever the more did hatred grow in the heart of Mîm, who hated all Elves, as has been told, and who looked with a jealous eye on the love that Túrin bore to Beleg. The Children of Hurin

and

Beleg: Elf of Doriath, a great archer; friend and companion of Túrin. Called Cúthalion ‘Strongbow’.

That said, there's no specific reason to assume he was the single greatest elf archer.

Orc

The orcs are invariably described as a bit crap with a bow, relying on mere force of numbers and volume of (poisoned) arrows to do damage:

Behind them orc-archers crowded, sending a hail of darts against the bowmen on the walls. - LotR: TTT

and

Dismayed the rammers let fall the trees and turned to fight; but the wall of their shields was broken as by a lightning-stroke, and they were swept away, hewn down, or cast over the Rock into the stony stream below. The orc-archers shot wildly and then fled. LotR: TTT

and

But orc-arrows are plenty, and the sight of one would not be taken as a sign of Doom by Boromir of Gondor. LotR: TTT

and

The orcs hindered by the mires that lay before the hills halted and poured their arrows into the defending ranks. - LotR: RotK

Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
  • In tLotR movies, Legolas is portrayed as a preeminent archer but I don't recall him be especially gifted in the books. He could definitely use the bow effectively but his skill wasn't remarkable. My recollection was that Bard was gifted enough to have a reputation for skill with the bow. But whether a gifted human could best an average elf, I haven't a clue. – Jim2B May 23 '15 at 19:55
  • In the Book of Lost Tales(part two?) I'm pretty sure Tolkien said a bit about Legolas' immense strength with the bow... And general vitality as well. – AJL May 23 '15 at 21:25
  • 2
    @Jim2B In the books, Legolas is certainly very good with a bow, but not ridiculously good. In the movies, I don't think he ever misses a shot. But in the films, Legolas has an infinite supply of arrows, whereas in the books he runs out more than once. The movies are like all movies- plausibility is secondary, badassness always comes first. The books don't strain the bounds of plausibility as much, except perhaps when Legolas shoots downpour a winged Nazgul in the dark with a single arrow. – Wad Cheber May 23 '15 at 21:41
  • @Richard Giving them an answer anyway tends to dilute the message. If they've already received an answer, why should they care about improving the question to get it reopened? – Anthony Grist May 24 '15 at 18:53
  • @AnthonyGrist - In which case other users can step in and edit. If you see something worth salvaging, you're always welcome to retrieve it from the bin before if gets auto-deleted. – Valorum May 24 '15 at 19:01
  • Legolas shot down the first fell beast the fellowship encountered is the books: with one shot, in the night, while on a boat – IG_42 Sep 30 '15 at 16:59
  • @IG_42 - That is indeed true. But how does he rank against other Elven archers? Is he impressive or merely adequate? – Valorum Sep 30 '15 at 17:34
  • @AJL Legolas of Gondolin was not Legolas, son of Thranduil of Mirkwood. – chepner Dec 24 '16 at 16:02
  • The Duilin of the opening quote is actually an Elf of Gondolin, (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Duilin_of_Gondolin) not the son of Duinhir. – Nolimon Sep 13 '17 at 17:31
  • @Nolimon Nice catch! – Edlothiad Sep 13 '17 at 18:13
3

For the bonus question

Tilion. The guardian Maia of the Moon.

...but Tilion was a hunter of the company of Oromë, and he had a silver bow

But Morgoth hated the new lights, and was for a while confounded by this unlooked-for stroke of the Valar. Then he assailed Tilion, sending spirits of shadow against him, and there was strife in Ilmen beneath the paths of the stars; but Tilion was victorious.

WOPR
  • 20,058
  • 10
  • 79
  • 101