94

In the few cases a fortification is attacked (Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith), the attackers don't besiege them, they start an assault as soon as they arrive.

In real life, assaults were only done when, after a long siege, the defenders were weakened enough (or when an overwhelming force was really in a hurry, and a very small fort was blocking their way), and even in those cases the casualties on the attacker's side could be an order of magnitude higher.

As neither Sauron nor Saruman seem to have any supply problems, why don't they besiege the fortresses of their enemies properly? Setting up a siege camp, complete with a palisade to guard against a cavalry charge, then slowly and meticulously grinding down the defenses (or just starving them out) seems to have had a high probability of success.

Was Sauron really that overconfident and impatient? Is there an in-universe justification for this? Sauron was gathering his strength for thousands of years, so a few months more shouldn't be such a big problem. He also doesn't seem like someone too stupid to think about how a proper siege has to be organized.

vsz
  • 11,794
  • 7
  • 55
  • 95
  • 51
    You mean aside from the "Siege of Gondor"? – Valorum Sep 22 '15 at 22:07
  • Yes, he was that impatient and overconfident – Matt Gutting Sep 22 '15 at 22:10
  • 3
    Sauron did know that the Fellowship was on the move and up to something. That probably caused him to act more quickly and recklessly than normal. – Xantec Sep 22 '15 at 22:11
  • 28
    @Richard : Although the chapter has the word "siege" in the title, it is used in the terms of a country being under siege, not as the military term. Maybe I should have expanded the title, but the point is that even in the "Siege of Gondor" the attackers don't really besiege it but attack it head-on as soon as they arrive. – vsz Sep 22 '15 at 22:11
  • 1
    The siege of Gondor wasn't really a siege, the point was breaking the gate. – Matt Gutting Sep 22 '15 at 22:12
  • 9
    If you have superior numbers and the ability to break someone's gate with trivial ease, why would you try to starve them out? – Valorum Sep 22 '15 at 22:13
  • 28
    A siege doesn't necessarily mean starving them out. I've studied a number of late medieval to early modern sieges, and the besiegers usually set up a well-defended camp to guard against a relief army. (Failure to do so was the main cause of defeat both at Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith) After that, they build fortifications closer and closer to the castle, each one supporting and providing cover fire to the next, meanwhile they bombard the fortress and slowly creep forward. So in case they do go for breaching the gates, they do it from a more favorable position, increasing the chance of success. – vsz Sep 22 '15 at 22:22
  • 3
    Related: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/90759/did-sauron-originally-intend-for-a-prolonged-siege-of-minas-tirith – Wad Cheber Sep 22 '15 at 22:28
  • @WadCheber : indeed an interesting question with a logical answer. However, that still doesn't answer the general question here: even if Minas Tirtih was an exception, why don't they use sieges anywhere else? – vsz Sep 22 '15 at 22:30
  • 5
    It isn't always true that assaults on fortified positions were done only after long investments. In fact, there is a term for the exact process of a quick, surprise assault: coup de main – Oldcat Sep 22 '15 at 22:32
  • @vsz - I'm not saying that the linked question answers this one, only that they're related. – Wad Cheber Sep 22 '15 at 22:35
  • @Oldcat : true, but it was still the exception rather than the rule. The question is why sieges are so uncommon (or meybe even completely non-existent) in Middle Earth. Is the social or technological background so radically different? – vsz Sep 22 '15 at 22:37
  • 44
    Tolkien was writing a mythology rather than a true history. Even Homer had to leave out almost all of the 10 year Siege of Troy from the Iliad because it is too boring. – Oldcat Sep 22 '15 at 23:11
  • 1
    Siege machines seem pretty rare in Middle-Earth. That may have had something to do with it. – Rogue Jedi Sep 22 '15 at 23:47
  • 3
    @Oldcat Even from a literary point of view, the siege may happen even if we as readers don't need to suffer it. For example, in A Game of Thrones we are told of the Siege of Storm's End, and it was a true siege that required smuggling provisions in order to survive -- so we know in Westeros siege warfare does happen. So why isn't this the case in Middle-earth? – Andres F. Sep 23 '15 at 01:18
  • 1
    @AndresF. Probably because Tolkien didn't want to write a siege into his story. – TylerH Sep 23 '15 at 05:55
  • 2
    @AndesF --- spot on: 'He [Sauron]' has a weapon that has brought low many strong places since the world begun. Hunger' (The Siege of Gondor). – Ian Thompson Sep 23 '15 at 08:13
  • @vsz they did guard against a relief army at minas tirith. They didn't count on a bunch of Neanderthals leading the army on a secret path through the Forrest. That was the mistake –  Sep 23 '15 at 10:30
  • 3
    @AndresF.There was a true siege of Hornburg few centuries earlier, in times of Helm. – Mithoron Sep 23 '15 at 12:12
  • 2
    Regarding the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Minas Tirith would certainly have fallen if it had actually been the Corsairs of Umbar who sailed up the Anduin instead of Aragorn. The gate had been breached and the city's defenses were essentially overthrown. If Sauron had taken the Army of the Dead and the Wood Woses into account, he would have probably taken Gondor with ease and without a real seige. – Todd Wilcox Sep 23 '15 at 15:20
  • There's almost a parallel here with the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi. Regardless of whether it's silly or not, the Ewoks were pivotal in the Battle of Endor and the Empire completely overlooked them as being a possible factor in their defenses of the Death Star. – Todd Wilcox Sep 23 '15 at 15:27
  • Because he's a schmuck – Valorum Sep 23 '15 at 17:21
  • 1
    Sauron: The Darrell Bevell of Middle Earth. – Major Stackings Sep 24 '15 at 03:21
  • @Xantec And he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids^H^H^H^Hhobbits! –  Sep 25 '15 at 15:30
  • 1
    In the books there is an one.day actual siege of Minas Tirith.They build trenches filled with fire around the city (apparently to keep Gondor cavalary from sorties) and bombard with flaming missiles. Only after 24h softening does the Whichking order assault. Apparently he sees that the fighting will of the Gondorians is broken by Nazgul-cries, and there is no need for further wasting time. – b.Lorenz Jul 14 '17 at 16:55
  • @RogueJedi that's possibly the other way around, since there were no siege machines due to lack of sieges itself – Nikita Neganov Feb 19 '19 at 10:22

10 Answers10

134

There are a few reasons:

Sauron

  • Sauron is REALLY afraid that at any moment his opponents will use the One Ring and become much more powerful. He currently has the advantage but he might lose it at any moment, so he attempts this blitzkrieg instead of a regular siege.
  • Mordor's orcs are too undisciplined for a longer siege: sooner or later they would start fighting amongst each other (if they didn't have an opponent to fight), which means every day would reduce the power of his troops.
  • Minas Tirith is a fortress, which means it is prepared for a long siege with supplies (or even inner source) of food and water. His huge army would have serious problems providing logistical supply.
  • He has a huge advantage of numbers and power so he believes in a quick victory.
  • Taking the city quickly would give him a chance to defeat Gondor before Rohan would have a chance to respond.

Saruman

  • Saruman is confident in the power of his new Uruk orcs and his technology. He also has a cunning plan to break the Helm's Deep fortifications.
  • Saruman probably wants to show off to Sauron, possibly to prove that he would not be a mere servant but maybe someone with almost equal power.
  • It would look VERY bad for him, if Sauron had taken Minas Tirith quickly while he was still besieging the Hornburg.
  • (As pointed out by @Scott) Saruman had Éomer exiled, greatly reducing the number of cavalry in Rohan's army. But exiled or not, Saruman could safely assume that Éomer would probably return (even without Gandalf's guidance) to harass the besieging orcs. So a quick attack would have greatly reduced the defenders' power and Saruman's losses.

In other words, both Sauron and Saruman have solid reasons for a quick attack instead of a long siege.

MC93
  • 263
  • 1
  • 9
Yasskier
  • 29,466
  • 7
  • 100
  • 172
  • 1
    Your point 4 contradicts point 5. The actions seem more like Sauron did not have a huge numbers advantage. If he did he could have just let all the armies arrive and crush them. It is more as if he has a short time window to decapitate Rohan and Gondor before they can mobilize themselves. Note Gandalf's entire strategy is to hasten Rohan's mobilization to counter this. – Oldcat Sep 22 '15 at 23:15
  • 9
    There is a difference in believing in your number superiority and being overconfident about it. He has CURRENTLY huge power advantage, Rohan's arrival would greatly diminish it, so he knows it will be easier to defeat his opponents individually. Yes, he is confident, but not stupid. – Yasskier Sep 22 '15 at 23:19
  • 5
    Pretty sure the books are the same, but certainly in the movies: Saurman had Eomer exiled, taking with him a large host of cavalry. They were too far away for any normal horse to reach them, and for them to return in time to affect the outcome of a quick storming of Helm's Deep. A protracted siege would have led to Eomer's return, to harass supply lines, break into Isenguard and generally cause a problem. – Scott Sep 23 '15 at 03:14
  • good point, I'll add it to the answer – Yasskier Sep 23 '15 at 03:21
  • 9
    @Yasskier --- In the book, Eomer is not exiled. He is imprisoned. After Gandalf cures Theoden, Eomer is released and travels to the Hornburg with the army. The force that attacks Saruman's army from the rear is led by Erkenbrand of Westfold. – Ian Thompson Sep 23 '15 at 08:16
  • 7
    "prepared for long siege with supplies" - this has always bothered me about the films. In what appears to me to be a huge oversight, Minas Tirith has no farmland around it. No fields of crops, no livestock, no farms, nothing. Just bare grassland. So where does Minas Tirith get its food? Surely a fortified city of that magnitude would be surrounded by a large area of farmland to provide it with food for immediate consumption as well as stocking up in times of peace? – Pepijn Schmitz Sep 23 '15 at 10:14
  • 2
    @PepijnSchmitz it is in the books. The films neglect that, as so much else for brevity –  Sep 23 '15 at 10:32
  • 2
    @CarlSixsmith That's the thing though, it wouldn't have added any length to the movie or complexity to the plot to just render some farms outside of the walls instead of grass. It really seems like an oversight to me, rather than a conscious choice for plot reasons or brevity. – Pepijn Schmitz Sep 23 '15 at 10:35
  • 4
    @PepijnSchmitz I meant Jackson had used brevity when reading the books and didn't really understand them. The battle scenes take up one chapter each. Yet they are most of the movies. –  Sep 23 '15 at 10:36
  • @Oldcat in warfare if you have a huge calvary army in the city being sieged, or attacked, this lets you sortie out, attacking people trying to destroy the gate,ect. and prolong the fighting vastly longer then if the besieged army is on foot, and stuck behind their walls. so allowing the Rohans Calvary behind the wall would turn the battle into an actual siege. – Himarm Sep 23 '15 at 13:37
  • Indeed in a few short hours, Saruman's troops are able to reach as far as the inner sanctum of the keep at Helm's Deep. – corsiKa Sep 23 '15 at 15:06
  • I think we can also describe Saruman as foolish and overconfident - either due to his own failings or because he was being manipulated by Sauron via the Palantir. Also, like Sauron, Saruman was ignorant to actors in the theater that turned out to have a pivotal role, namely the Ents in Saruman's case (and the Wood Woses and Army of the Dead in Sauron's). – Todd Wilcox Sep 23 '15 at 15:25
  • 7
    @Himarm - actually if you have a huge cavalry army in a siege you eat the horses very quickly. Horses need a huge amount of food, you can't afford the cost for long. The proper doctrine is to send nearly all cavalry off to harrass the rear area, aside from a small strike force. See Belisarius during the Gothic siege of Rome. – Oldcat Sep 23 '15 at 16:47
  • 2
    @SJuan76 If someone as powerful as Gandalf or Galadriel took over the ring, Sauron would be in serious trouble (at least for a while, until the ring would betray the new owner) - they coudle asily banish him for another few thousand years. Sauron knew that his enemies had the ring and was fully expecting that they will try to use it rather than destroy it. – Yasskier Sep 23 '15 at 23:47
  • Also, Saruman was a brilliant wizard with a clever new invention (gunpowder bombs in the movie, although the books never call it something other than "dark sorcery from Isengard"), but a piss-poor tactician -- while at the same time believing that being a genius in one field made him a genius in all fields. – Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI Sep 24 '15 at 05:00
  • 6
    This answer is very good, but it also might be good to mention that neither Sauron nor Saruman placed any intrinsic value whatsoever on the lives of the orcs and considered the orcs to be quite replaceable. This is an important difference from (most) military leaders in real life and would significantly reduce the motivation to siege first instead of assaulting immediately. – reirab Sep 24 '15 at 14:49
  • 3
    +1. I'd also add that Sauron had no concerns for his troops or their morale, so he didn't really care how many were lost as long as enough remained to seize and hold the objective. (In the description of the the immediate effects of the Ring being destroyed, I believe it hints that Sauron was magically enhancing his troops' morale and ferocity, as well.) – Wayne Sep 24 '15 at 18:20
  • 1
    I had always gotten the feeling that Sauron (and by extension, Saruman), was striking the major strongholds before people realized just how big of a threat was coming and managed to get their act together. In the movie at least, there was skepticism everywhere about Sauron actually returning - I would imagine it was even more so for the common man. (But then, I haven't seen/read LotR is quite some time.) – DoubleDouble Sep 25 '15 at 17:01
  • @SJuan76 We know, from Tolkiens letters, that no one other than Sauron could control the ring. However the books are very clear on the fact that Sauron fears that someone should gain mastery over the ring, so presumable Sauron have not read Tolkiens letters. – Taemyr Sep 28 '15 at 09:31
  • Isn't the One Ring an actual part of Sauron? Is it really possible for the One Ring to make the user more powerful than Sauron himself? – Loupax Sep 28 '15 at 11:45
27

Firstly Sauron did have a blocking force, it was arrayed to the North to intercept any relief from Rohan. Moreover, because he was committing attacks on multiple fronts, he thought he could forestall any concentration of forces by the Free People, Dale and the Lonely Mountain were attacked by Easterlings, Lothlórien and Thranduil's Kingdom by forces from the Misty mountains and Dol Guldur.

Secondly Tolkien has sieges in Middle-earth History, Angband was one, but the Last Alliance besieged Barad-dûr for seven years.

The reason Sauron couldn't wait was The Ring. The most likely thing to happen to it, in his estimation, was that someone of the Free Peoples would take it and use it to challenge him. He had to strike hard and fast to forestall the would be Lord of the Rings learning how to use it and subverting his control.

Saruman thought he had a trick that would make a long siege unnecessary, the Blasting Fire of Orthanc

BTW, in the book it is Erkenbrand who "has rebelled" against Theoden, Eomer is still with Theoden in Meduseld.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
Colin Speirs
  • 361
  • 2
  • 3
  • 3
    I don't think there is any indication that Erkenbrand rebelled against Theoden. According to the Battles of the Fords of Isen (Unfinished Tales), he asked for reinforcements from Edoras, and Grima made sure he didn't get any. I don't think he disobeyed any orders, though. – Ian Thompson Sep 23 '15 at 09:11
  • Angband was hardly a formal siege. Setting up nations hundreds of miles away from your enemy and fighting a battle every 100 years or so is not the same as a real investment. – Oldcat Sep 23 '15 at 16:49
  • @Oldcat: It might be if you're an elf and aren't going to die, unless you're killed in battle. – GreenMatt Sep 23 '15 at 19:01
  • No, since Angband was never cut off from resupply at any time. – Oldcat Sep 23 '15 at 19:04
  • Wow it's clearly an allusion to the second world war. – Darth Egregious Sep 25 '15 at 15:07
  • 1
    Ian Thompson. Quite right. In the book Erkenbrand's forces are cut off from Theoden after the Forces of the White Hand break through the Fords of Isen. Eomer is trouble, but is in Meduseld. I was tying it to the film, but not explaining as well as I thought – Colin Speirs Sep 28 '15 at 08:11
20

We know that sieges were used in Middle-earth from a remark by a man of Minas Tirith during the siege of Gondor:

He [Sauron] has a weapon that has brought low many strong places since the world begun. Hunger.

We don't know what sieges he was referring to, but a lot of sieges are mentioned in The Lord of the Rings (even if you don't count the Hornburg or the prelude to the battle of the Pelennor Fields).

I don't think the siege of Angband is mentioned, but the siege of Barad-dûr, which lasted for seven years is mentioned in a number of places. After that:

  • According to Appendix A (iv), Eärnil I laid siege to Umbar around TA933. The men of Harad then laid siege to Umbar 'for many years' until Hyarmendacil destroyed their forces in TA1050.

  • Rivendell is said to have been besieged during the reign of King Arveleg I (Appendix A (iii)). There is no indication as to the duration of this siege.

  • During the Kin-Strife, Eldacar lays siege to Pelargir. Appendix A calls the siege 'long'; according to the Tale of Years, it started in 1447 and ended in 1448.

  • Minas Ithil is besieged by the Nazgûl in TA2000 and taken in TA2002 (The Tale of Years).

  • Helm Hammerhand was besieged by the Dunlendings in the Hornburg during the Long Winter (TA2758-9) (The Tale of Years and Appendix A (II)).

  • King Brand and King Dáin Ironfoot are besieged in Erebor during the War of the Ring, from March 17 to March 27, TA3019.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
Ian Thompson
  • 10,912
  • 35
  • 60
14

For the assault on Minas Tirith in particular, the other points made are all valid but one crucial plot point was missed: Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron via the Palantir, which forced the latter's hand. Sauron was going to take more time to build an unstoppable force that will crush Gondor and all the other nations in one stroke, but finding out about Aragorn's existence and intention to take up the throne freaked him out enough to attack early.

This point was made in this other question: Did Aragorn touch the Palantir in the book?

More detail is available here:

Fighting at the battle of Helm's Deep, Andúril returns to war. After the destruction of Isengard, Gandalf gives Aragorn the Palantir of Orthanc. Aragorn uses it to challenge Sauron and force him to hasten his plans. Learning of Gondor's dire need through the Palantir, Aragorn takes the Paths of the Dead. Leading the Dead Men of Dunharrow to fulfill their oath to fight against Sauron, Aragorn overthrows the army gathering at Pelargir and sails in the captured fleet to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Here the Hosts of the West are victorious. Aragorn leads the surviving forces to a desperate battle before the Gates of Mordor to buy time for Frodo.

http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?Aragorn

Community
  • 1
congusbongus
  • 5,111
  • 5
  • 29
  • 55
12

In order to prosecute a siege, you need a considerable amount of organization, skilled engineers and planners, well trained sappers, and a number of other professions. You also need some sort of organized supply train to forward the food and other consumables used by the army.

Evil Orcs driven by fear of the lash of the Nazgûl don't provide any of that. The Nazgûl themselves were kings once, not military engineers once.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
Oldcat
  • 5,188
  • 29
  • 29
9

Several points that I conjecture here regarding this, but I believe it all comes down to both being maniacal tyrants who despite having enslaved some smart people do not acknowledge any wisdom beyond their own (The Nine were great kings and warlords reduced to being powerful thugs). Their wisdom is consumed by unnatural desire.

  • Both Saruman and Sauron spent much time otherwise weakening their chief foes in Rohan and Gondor (examples being Wormtongue's "softening" of Theoden, and the madness of Denethor among them) to take out any serious leadership
  • Neither one of them demonstrate within the stories that they are military strategists
  • Once Saruman realized the One Ring was out of his reach, he knew to do whatever would please Sauron
  • Knowing the time is right, and life having no meaning except as a means to end any resistance to dominating Middle-earth, burning through orcs, trolls and other critters is a non-issue
DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
Lynn Fredricks
  • 1,080
  • 8
  • 7
9

A simple summary: a siege is an attempt to lower the effective defence of the city in order to minimise the cost of an assault: you might even get the city without launching said assault. So,

a siege is a trade of time and money against own casualties

Sauron and Saruman have Orcs that they can create themselves. They have huge numbers, full control (no risk of rebellion), for virtually no price. But in both cases time was pressing. The trade isn't worth it.

clem steredenn
  • 770
  • 3
  • 8
  • 15
5

As others have mentioned, the reason for Sauron's haste was probably the fact someone else could get hold of the Ring.

But also, one main reason for besieging an enemy is it conserves your troops' lives. If they're well-fed while the people inside are gradually starving, you win with much less loss of life. If you don't care about your troops, or you grew them not long ago, then this consideration is moot. Charge!

Rob Grant
  • 167
  • 5
  • This is addressed in the accepted answer. "Minas Tirith is a fortress, which means it is prepared for long siege with supplies (or even inner source) of food and water. His huge army would have serious problem with providing logistical supply" Unless you add something new to this answer, it is likely to be deleted as "low quality." I see you have credibility in the network, but this is not an answer that seems to really add anything. This is not meant to discourage you, but hopefully prod you into editing this answer and creating better answers (and questions) in the future. – Meat Trademark Sep 23 '15 at 11:13
  • @MeatTrademark thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure how it nullifies my point that Sauron probably didn't care about his troops, and thus didn't need to behave the way a besieger normally would. Can you elaborate? – Rob Grant Sep 23 '15 at 13:02
  • At the very least, you aren't answering the question. "Was Sauron really that overconfident and impatient? Is there an in-universe justification for this?" Your answer is not better than the already accepted one that made more points and was more thought out. Not caring about the well-being of your troops is still different from not caring if they win. The only reason for the fight is to win. Sauron didn't just throw troops out to die because he didn't care about them. He didn't breed them for the mere act of watching them die. – Meat Trademark Sep 23 '15 at 14:10
  • 2
    @MeatTrademark Robert's point is mentioned nowhere in the accepted answer. Orc lives are worthless to Sauron, so he has no incentive to change his strategy to try to save more of them. He can always grow more. The last bullet point on Lynn's answer may be making this same point, but I find the wording confusing on that answer, so I'm not sure. – Molag Bal Sep 23 '15 at 15:00
  • Worthless as they may be he did not make them just to kill them. He still wanted them to succeed. From my comment right above yours: "Not caring about the well-being of your troops is still different from not caring if they win." They don't grow instantly, and it's a long march to that front. And the forging of the weapons takes a long time and much forestry for the fires, etc etc... When they fail, it's not like backup is a few minutes away. See what I'm saying? It's not trivial that they fail. A lot of effort went into those troops. "He can always grow more." Not quick enough to matter. – Meat Trademark Sep 23 '15 at 15:23
  • 1
    @MeatTrademark - Minas Tirith might have been a fortress, but I would question its preparation for war. Denethor's despair due to Saruon's contact through the Palantir certainly led to a lack of preparation. Look at the underhand way the request for aid had to be gotten out, and the botched handling of the defense/retirement from Osgiliath. It is quite reasonable to assume that Denethor had not been stocking up for a long defense, what with him setting himself on fire the first day and all. – Oldcat Sep 23 '15 at 16:56
  • 1
    @MeatTrademark thanks for the feedback again. When you say "at the very least" are you saying that your original point was incorrect? Or am I still missing something about that? Your tone to my eye is coming across as a bit more aggressive than I'm used to on here, and I'm trying to puzzle out where you're coming from. – Rob Grant Sep 23 '15 at 20:36
  • @MeatTrademark Probability of winning aside, caring about the losses to your attacking force actually was a big motivation for sieging first. The point that Sauron and Saruman placed no intrinsic value at all on the lives of the orcs is indeed an important point in why they would have had less motivation to siege first and it is missing from the accepted answer. – reirab Sep 24 '15 at 14:41
  • I understand all of this, but as it stands, I just don't find it to be a very good answer. This just seems like more of a comment on the accepted answer to me, not a complete answer in and of itself. When I read the question then read He doesn't care about his troops as an answer, I'm left wanting more. That's all. Others disagree. Great. That's how communities work. No worries. – Meat Trademark Sep 24 '15 at 17:27
  • @MeatTrademark Is "I'm left wanting more" really it? First you're absolute that my answer is in the accepted answer. When I show you it isn't, and you missed the point of my answer, you - without missing a beat - start saying my answer implied Sauron didn't want to win. It didn't. And now you were really just saying the answer lacks... something. If that were true then why not say that in the first place? No need for a strange, slippery conversation. AD's answer looks very similar to mine, but no chameleon commenting there. Why not say "Sorry, I misunderstood," and have done with it? – Rob Grant Sep 25 '15 at 20:05
  • I didn't think it added anything. Others disagreed. I personally didn't find it a compelling point. Others did. I didn't imply you said Sauron didn't want to win, it just seemed like a point you may not have considered. Don't take it so personal. And you accused me of being aggressive? Just let it go. I didn't see AD's answer, yours came up for review. So I reviewed it. And I did suggest you add to your answer in my first comment. Can you please stop at-signing me? This isn't a chat room. I'm not going to change my mind especially after what begins to feel like harassment. Let it go. – Meat Trademark Sep 26 '15 at 15:04
  • The at-sign isn't used because this is a chat room (that's why it's available in the comments; it's to direct a comment at a particular person. Please stop this silly half-insinuations. And this isn't harassment (another little insinuation). It's talking on the public internet; a conversation you started. – Rob Grant Sep 27 '15 at 20:09
  • The at-sign signals me. And we're supposed to avoid over-long threads, as this isn't a chat room. I suggested you add to your answer, I wasn't trying to start a conversation. I don't know what the "silly half-insinuations" bit means, but I was obviously trying to stop this thread with both of my last comments. And yet you continue. You are prolonging this, and all I'm doing is responding to you and saying please let it go. I disagreed with you. I still do. And I fear that you'll respond to this even though I have nothing more to say, as of 3 comments ago. Let it go Let it go Let it go. Please? – Meat Trademark Sep 28 '15 at 19:48
4

Most likely the real explanation is, not the right circumstances to be dramatic enough. There have been events closer to real sieges in Middle-earth history, such as the Siege of Angband which lasted 400 years.

Obviously something like this wouldn't work for LOTR's timeframe. For in-universe, the undisciplined orcs argument may make some sense since it's the other side which typically did the besieging.

Peter Mortensen
  • 246
  • 1
  • 10
A D
  • 141
  • 1
2

Well, sorry for telling the hard truth, but I think it's mainly because we are talking of a book, which needs a certain rhythm. Let's assume for a while Minas Tirith would have been besieged. They have internal water supplies, so the limiting factor would be food. Knowing that war was to come, it is likely that ample food was stored. So how would you write about that?

Month 3. Gandalf won the poker tournament. Again. Not bad, because half of the city now belongs to him, making him even more motivated to defend it. Bad news for Aragorn, though.

Month 5. Nothing new. Orks seem to be bored, too. Playing soccer with the head of one of their own again. Quite risky to take part. The loser's heads are used in the games to come.

Month 19. Nothing new. Hope that the others are well. But Frodo seems to have failed, otherwise Sauron would have been vanished by now. By the way: why didn't we ask the damn eagles wether they could fly the ring bearer with the damn ring to the damn mountain during a moonless night? Would have saved us a lot of trouble. Anyway, this is going to last. Only one third of the food was used. This is going to take a while...

Meh.

Markus W Mahlberg
  • 137
  • 2
  • Even if the eagles were willing to serve as transport, it wouldn't have worked. Frodo still wouldn't have been able to drop the Ring into the fire. And maybe an eagle would have decided it could safeguard it better itself, and so claimed the Ring? – Michael Foster Nov 09 '23 at 13:07