Ok, time to spark some discussion again in this forum before the dust layer gets too thick

Thomas, you write in your text on Angmar

"In this context these Easterlings
should not be the mainstay of cavalry,
but infantry and charioteers. The image
of the typical steppe nomad and horse-
Easterling should be dismissed for
Tolkiens Easterlings.
A good model for such Easterlings
might be the semi-nomadic and settled
people of the real world who live near
the steppe frontier and are subject to
regular harassment of nomads and occasionally
taking up this lifestyle themselves
when the need arises (e.g. in times
of successive bad harvests or deadly disease
such as the Great Plague)."

While I agree that the steppe nomad image has been stressed beyond the actual textual evidence by ICE, I think this is a difficult statement to make, not the least because such a distinction is nigh impossible to make in the real world. A lot of rather settled nations were founded by former nomads (or, more properly, semi-nomadic people), only to be harassed by the next wave of nomads coming in and a lot of settled nations were actually founded by migrants. And the picture gets even more muddled when we look at mythological texts, where people like Attila (Etzel) are described not far too different from kings like any other. (Though admittedly, some see some involvement of Flavius Aetius in the figure)

The Bulgars, today a Slavic people, stem from a mixture of Slavic immigrants into the eastern Roman empire and the actual Proto-Bulgars, which coming from the steppes founded several realms both on the Balkans and the Danube, where they were over time assimilated by the Slavs, and on the Wolga (and that's not even counting the original Thracian inhabitants of the area today's Bulgaria is in....)

Later the Pechenegs became "neighbours" of the Bulgars by taking over the area north of the Black Sea, until they themselves were rolled up by the Cumans, who subsequently were rolled up by the Mongols.

A lot of the people we believe to be "steppe nomads" were actually only semi-nomadic. The Alans and the Magyars practiced agriculture. And we know, of course, that the Magyars established a stable realm which is the basis of a modern state.

How nomadic these people were not the least depended often enough on whether they had land to settle or not. It's tough to stay in one place when you actually have no place you can call your own.

So we should not dismiss a cliché by ICE simply on the basis of believing in another cliché ourselves. As I wrote elsewhere, the parallels e.g. between the relationship between the Ostrogoths and the Huns, both mythologically (e.g. in the Hervarar-Saga, separated by "mirkwood") and historically (history of conflict, part time vassalage and revolt) and the Northmen/Eotheod ancestors and the Easterlings are to great to be dismissed in my eyes. If Tolkien can put the Anglo-Saxons on horseback by mixing them with the Goths, he certainly can put the Huns, Bulgars and Pechenegs on foot or into chariots and wagons by mixing them with other people.

Hi Oliver!

you're absolutely right about with your point about mixing and modifying real-world models. I would welcome more details on the Easterlings, as Tolkiens ideas about them (the few of them) and ICE's interpretations were not really matching. My point was not to dismiss the usage of real-world models and modifying them, but the in my opinion not justifiable approach to make the Easterlings (until at least about the 19th century T.A.) mounted warriors in the way of the over-used steppe nomad pmodel.
I seem to read a certain tendency in Tolkien's peoples regarding their use and mastery of the horse: "Good" people seem to have an early understanding of it and use it in the sense of "real" cavalry quite early (Second Age; HoMe12), while the more "evil" or at least "un-enlightened" ones are less adapt here; sticking to infantry or charioteers at maximum. It is quite late (inh the Wainrider Wars) that Gondor's nenemies are said to have fielded cavalry. And even then these probably came from bexond Rhovanion, as the "Easterlings" living there (and the Wainriders themselves) used chariots.

All this could suggest two things:
1. The adoption of cavalry is dependent on outlook (good/evil) or
2. Cavalry usage is a hallmark of an advanced society for Tolkien

I guess #2 would be better to explain, but I'm not sure whether this holds in real-world comparisons. At least it's worth discussing.

I wonder how all these less advanced people were stuck in their "backwardness" with cavalry-using peoples living nearby (often as enemies) and still not adopting the same kind of lifestyle with respect to warfare.

Thanks
Thomas

As for the first aspect, I think it's a bit more complex. We have the
protagonist, but somewhat ambiguous, Noldor in the first age using
cavalry and horse archers, probably as a sign of their being an
advanced society. On the other hand, Numenor uses no cavalry worth that
name at all (if accepting DotGF as evidence), and the same is likely
true for early Gondor until they started dealing more with the
Northmen, who, on the other hand, seem to have used cavalry despite NOT
being as advanced as Gondor.

As for your second question, I'd
say that the reason is quite simply that as long as things work fine
the way things are, there's no real reason to change. The Romans had
long fought mounted warriors but put the effort on devising infantry
tactics to nullify the advantage. It's only when that doesn't work
anymore, either because the enemy has improved or because your infantry
drill is slacking, that you need to think about different solutions.
Likewise a people living in an area that is not conducive for cavalry
warfare has precious little reason to adopt cavalry and even where it
exists, one is not likely to hear much of it.

One point,
though: One needs to distinguish between cavalry as a melee force and
horse archers, since they function quite differently, and can be used
totally independently of each other.Having one doesn't necessarily imply having the other.

Hi Oliver!

Previously Oliver Hauss wrote:

As for the first aspect, I think it's a bit more complex. We have the

protagonist, but somewhat ambiguous, Noldor in the first age using

cavalry and horse archers, probably as a sign of their being an

advanced society. On the other hand, Numenor uses no cavalry worth that

name at all (if accepting DotGF as evidence), and the same is likely

true for early Gondor until they started dealing more with the

Northmen, who, on the other hand, seem to have used cavalry despite NOT

being as advanced as Gondor.

What I mean is not only cavalry, but the mastery and usage of the horse as a riding animal in general. As you say the Noldor had it. The Númenóeans were great riders and lovers of horses, but they did not use them as cavalry. Anyway, they were expert horsemen as it seems. From the Endorian people, only the "good" Northmen seem to have mastered the horse. The "evil" Easterlings seem to almost not use it until the 20th century T.A. when the Dúnedain are surprised at the presence of cavalry in the Wainrider army.

As for your second question, I'd

say that the reason is quite simply that as long as things work fine

the way things are, there's no real reason to change. The Romans had

long fought mounted warriors but put the effort on devising infantry

tactics to nullify the advantage.

Hi Thomas

Previously Thomas Morwinsky wrote:

What I mean is not only cavalry, but the mastery and usage of the horse as a riding animal in general. As you say the Noldor had it. The Númenóeans were great riders and lovers of horses, but they did not use them as cavalry. Anyway, they were expert horsemen as it seems. From the Endorian people, only the "good" Northmen seem to have mastered the horse. The "evil" Easterlings seem to almost not use it until the 20th century T.A. when the Dúnedain are surprised at the presence of cavalry in the Wainrider army.

Were they surprised at the presence or the extent of the presence? In the case of Ondoher, C&E states about the army he encountered "This was composed not only of the war-chariots of the Wainriders but also of a force of cavalry far greater than any that had been expected." This suggests that a)they expected to face cavalry but b)not to the extent that showed up that day.

Considering the description of the battle, I would think that Ondoher was taken by surprise as to the number of highly mobile enemies he was facing, which required to adapt the layout of his troops quicker than he was capable of, leading to his situation getting from bad to worse as the formation of his troops completely dissolved in the attempt to react. Probably he would have been better off staying put, but that's not easy either once you get surrounded...

It's one thing having to face a cavalry charge on one side. With good shields and people who know how to use them, you can repel such an attack. If the enemy's army is large enough, however, to be able to attack on all sides, you need to have very good infantry tactics to be able to keep standing and even better to be able to take matters into your own hands again and attack by yourself. Something like the scottish schiltrons used at Bannockburn. From "disaster of the Gladden Fields", one could judge that at least the Numenoreans seem to have had the necessary tools, at the minimum on the defensive side, but whether Ondoher's army was still up to the task and simply didn't have the time or whether they had lost their edge and drill is an entirely different issue.

Cheers,

Oliver