Were Orcs Ever More Powerful than Elves or Men?

Q: Were Orcs Ever More Powerful than Elves or Men?

ANSWER: The actual question submitted by reader concerns a specific passage in The Lord of the Rings, in the chapter “The Black Gate Opens”. Here is the paragraph that inspired the question:

The Captains mounted again and rode back, and from the host of Mordor there went up a jeering yell. Dust rose smothering the air, as from nearby there marched up an army of Easterlings that had waited for the signal in the shadows of Ered Lithui beyond the further Tower. Down from the hills on either side of the Morannon poured Orcs innumerable. The men of the West were trapped, and soon. all about the grey mounds where they stood, forces ten times and more than ten times their match would ring them in a sea of enemies. Sauron had taken the proffered bait in jaws of steel.

By itself this passage seems straightforward, but our astute reader mentioned something Gandalf said in the chapter “The Last Debate”:

‘No, he will try to trap the fly and take the sting,’ said Gandalf. ‘And there are names among us that are worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece. No, he will not smile.’

On the surface it is easy to dismiss Gandalf’s comment as figurative rhetoric. Sure, there were some great warriors in Gondor and Arnor, but was he talking about men who were mightier than 1,000 knights? Or did he mean their leadership skills, and their emotional and physical presence, presented a danger to Sauron’s control over his own forces?

The One Ring was Sauron’s tool for controlling the creatures of Middle-earth. He wanted to dominate the wills of as many thinking creatures as possible. The ring magnified his own native power. Boromir, when he fell to the Ring’s temptation, believed he could use it to command great armies that would defeat Sauron militarily. In his argument with Gandalf over the wizard’s decision to send the Ring to Mordor, Denethor suggested that merely withholding the Ring from Sauron would weaken him (or keep him weak).

So when Tolkien writes about Orcs and Easterlings being more than “ten times” the match of Aragorn’s Army of the West (numbering fewer than 7,000 men), does mean that these Sauronic soldiers are greatly enhanced by their master’s will or simply that there were more than 70,000 troops?

Honestly, I’ve never read the passage as any other way than meaning that Aragorn’s army was outnumbered by at least 10-to-1. But then, I never paid any attention to Gandalf’s comment about “names among us” being “worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece”. He would not have made such a comment lightly. I don’t believe J.R.R. Tolkien would have intended to confuse the reader with figurative and metaphorical language. I believe, after reflecting upon these two passages together, that Tolkien may have meant certain leaders could wield a positive influence upon their followers such that their armies became more effective fighting forces than mere numbers indicated.

Of course, we don’t see that play out in the final battle. While Aragorn’s army does make a stand against Mordor’s onslaught, it is the destruction of the One Ring that leads to the defeat of Sauron’s forces. Deprived of his power, Sauron is no longer able to control his thousands upon thousands of soldiers. The Orcs, we are told, run about in dismay. Completely bereft of the will that had driven them for so long they were rendered completely useless as soldiers. But some of the Men who followed Sauron had done so willingly, and they were so steeped in evil they had to be fought to their utter defeat.

And so we can say that perhaps there was a little bit of support for Gandalf’s statement, but we cannot be entirely sure. Maybe even the hardened Easterlings fought with less courage and resolution than they would have had Sauron not been stripped of his power. We cannot know for certain what J.R.R. Tolkien fully intended.

In other words, did Sauron really believe he needed 70,000+ soldiers to defeat a 7,000-man army (less after Aragorn dismissed some troops and left others behind)? If so, his soldiers must not have been good matches, one on one, for Gondorians and Rohirrim. Or else Gandalf was really telling the truth, the clear and absolute truth, and men like Aragorn, Eomer, and Imrahil were so inspiring and daunting that their armies would accomplish almost anything for them.

Tolkien’s trope may not be so fantastical. Anyone who has studied the history of war can easily name one or more generals whose troops achieved incredible results for them, sometimes even against far greater odds, simply because the generals had amazing personalities and some military skill. Napoleon Bonaparte comes to mind. His soldiers adored him. He won many battles and was credited with devising successful strategies that were copied by other generals. And yet Bonaparte may not be the best example, for his Grande Armee was destroyed by the Russians in a long, drawn-out winter campaign.

In the American War Between the States two generals are fondly remembered: Lee and Grant. Their accomplishments in battle are legendary and still studied by modern military students. In one battle, General Lee rode forward to inspect his lines as the Confederate soldiers were beginning to falter under withering Union fire. Supposedly the general’s mere presence heartened his men and inspired them to turn the battle around. Grant had a similar incident when he set up a battery of cannons to defend a retreating Union army that had become demoralized by a Confederate attack.

During the Second World War, of course, Sir Winston Churchill refused to consider the possibility of surrender or negotiating a peace with Germany. His famous “we will never surrender” speech has been recited and parodied many times in the generations since the war. And these are just names familiar to Americans and Brits. We could go farther back to Julius Caesar, whose legions defeated vastly larger Gaul armies (according to his own accounts). In fact, there are famous generals and kings throughout classical and medieval history from Leonides at Thermopylae to Henry V at Agincourt who defeated vastly larger forces.

The idea that Aragorn and his fellow great lords could command a small army to victory over considerably greater numbers, even if not ten times their numbers, is thus quite reasonable. This is not a fantasy trope.

And what works for the good guys also works for the bad guys. Napoleon was very much like Sauron in his own way. I confess that I see Napoleon as one of the most evil warlords in European history. I hope our French friends are not offended by that assessment, but Napoleon’s thirst for conquest and power led to millions of deaths. The Grande Armee alone is believed to have lost 300,000 to 500,000 men (sources vary). But along with his wars Napoleon bestowed a new set of laws upon Europe, and he initiated civic projects and reforms that had profound effects upon French government and society well beyond his reign.

Sauron, according to Tolkien, originally wanted to help the people of Middle-earth. He wanted to provide them with effective leadership, as we might say in modern rhetoric. He never became nihilistic the way Melkor (Morgoth) had. In his mind, Sauron probably thought of himself as a well-intentioned being for a long time. So Tolkien suggests in some of his notes and commentaries. While I think it would be a stretch to argue that Napoleon was a role-model for Sauron, I submit that there are parallels between the two.

Hence, the idea that Sauron’s forces would have been a greater match for Aragorn’s forces does seem consistent with the interpretation that Sauron’s massive army was greatly strengthened by his will. He was able to imbue his followers with even greater courage and dedication than the typical leaders of the West, and probably more so than Aragorn and Eomer. They were beloved lords and captains but would have been no match for Sauron.

I concede that the passage in “The Black Gate Opens” could refer to more than mere comparisons in number. It’s still a novel concept to me but it is consistent with historical precedents as well as what Tolkien wrote about Sauron and the Ring. Accepting Sauron’s armies as being so deeply imbued with his presence and dominating personality, the scene becomes even more hopeless. No matter how great Aragorn’s leadership was, there would have been absolutely no chance of his winning that battle. Being worth ten thousand mail-clad knights would not have been sufficient.

And Gandalf, of course, knew that, just as he knew the worth of the leaders to whom he was speaking. I don’t think Tolkien meant for Gandalf’s words to seem like mere flattery. He almost certainly really did mean that the lords of Gondor and Rohan could strengthen their armies by their presence.

# # #

Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?

12

Click to Like