Ents

Would the preference for rock throwing hold up? Somewhat. They do have one of the greatest potential to be artillery in any military force of Middle Earth. Their primary means of hurling rocks at their enemies appears to be to throw the boulder directly at the enemy – not rolling them or arching the trajectories so they fall on the target from overhead. This is closest to the real life artillery technique of direct fire. Basically like Civil War cannons rather than mortars. This is really effective against the massed infantry formations used by Isengard as well as its walls.   Up to World War One, direct fire artillery was used in groups of guns placed next to each other and as close to the front as possible. This is a bad idea when WW1 introduced longer range small arms and trenches, meaning direct fire batteries were both ineffective and exposed. But this is not a problem for ents – their armor and strength allows them to be safe against the crossbows of Isengard. Keep in mind that the artillery doctrine of the French between the Napoleonic and First World Wars specified using their field artillery at 4,500 meters – crossbows could reach 380 yards.   So, one of the major limitations of the use of ents as artillery in the attack on Isengard is the limitations in their ammunition types. The successful bombardments in the First World War and field artillery in the Napoleonic period involved a wide variety of shells. Napoleonic field guns had round shot and canister rounds that were basically huge shot gun shells. By the time WW1 came around, high explosive and gas shells were added to the mix. The combination of gas and high explosive rounds were devastating against hardened positions while shrapnel had devastating impacts on exposed infantry. Ents just have round shot. This is not to discount the power of round shot as it could be quite effective against traditional fortification walls and massed infantry formations. However, high explosive obviously is better against fortifications and shrapnel rounds against infantry. Gas rounds would be devastating in the cramped underground factories and mines of Isengard. In fact, in World War One High explosive shells would blow holes in an enemy artillery bunker that was then followed with a gas shell. The concentration of gas this resulted in much more effective use of gas in the later stages of the war. Meanwhile infantry can reduce the impact of artillery on their ranks by adopting skirmisher formations when faced with anti-infantry fire.   But ents will have to engage in infantry battles at some point. How would they engage in those? For that we should turn to the artillery tactics of the Napoleonic period, where the massed infantry formations were common at the same time as field guns. Field guns normally were 6, 8 or 12 pound guns – the larger 24 pound guns were normally saved for sieges. Generally, counter-battery fire was only used when enemy artillery was doing more damage to friendly infantry than the reverse. Lighter calibers were used at higher rates of fire. All guns were aimed at single targets until that battery was silenced, then the next one faced the full force of friendly available artillery.   In this context, French artillery doctrine was to fire at the enemy center. Infantry losses were prioritized over counter-battery fire. When engaged against infantry, getting in close and using high rates of fire was the ideal. In practice this meant 1 to 2 rounds per minute at ranges of 80-200 yards. Generally though, 100 to 150 was considered ideal, and doctrine did not allow for longer ranges than 450 yards. Guns started the battle with 170 rounds, but had special supply trains set up to deliver an additional 340 rounds in the rear. Then, the concentration of fire on specific points – namely the center of the enemy line - was used to break the enemy formations. Concentration did not require physical closeness so long as the same point was bombarded.   The Model 1863 20 pound Parrot gun could hit targets 2,500 yards away. 45 of these were made for the Union. Normal rate of aimed fire was 2 shots per minute, with 4 per minute possible when the crew was in a rush. So, we can expect similar rates of fire for the Ents. Again, this is assuming that reductions in weight per shot would allow for greater speed and/or distance.   Round shot was only one of many types of rounds used in the Napoleonic era, but the only one available to the Ents. It is basically just a big ball of iron or stone. The larger the projectile, the faster it went. It was the sheer impact of the shot that does the damage. Also, damage done is based on force, which is speed times acceleration. This meant that larger caliber guns could do a lot more damage than smaller guns. However, it could also be shot back if the enemy let it cool down and come to a rest.   Now, if we assume the same numbers as the French supply numbers for their field guns, each ent would march into battle with 170 stones that weigh in between 6-12 pounds. This means 1,020 and 2,040 pounds carried on each individual ent. That is not that unreasonable. Normally, that means I would up the numbers by giving them the 24 pound siege gun rounds. But, there is no assurances that they would not have to engage in melee fighting at some point. Therefore an ent would benefit from a smaller load. I would suspect then that the larger 24 pound stones would be kept in the rear, as the 340 round reserve. This would give each ent 8,160 pounds of ammunition available should their supplies run low or the situation allows for that higher calibre.   It appears to me then that the ents follow Just War Theory when it comes to their rather limited engagement with the outside world. This theory is a branch of military ethics that states while war is always harmful, there are criteria that if met war can be considered justified and morally acceptable. Those are basically broken down to just reasons to go to war and just conduct in war. Just ends to war is a recent addition to the theory. Lets break down Just War Theory to see if their attack on Isengard and Mordor fits with it. Tolkien himself was a devout Catholic, so I will be leaning heavily on Catholic interpretations of Just War Theory.   St. Augustine wrote that the government is vested with the power of the sword by God with good reason. As either part of the government or subjects of it, Christians should not be ashamed of using violence to protect peace or punish evil. He goes on to state that peacefulness in the face of evil that can only be stopped by force is a sin. Especially when authorized by legitimate authority, self-defense can be justified. If operating under divine command and through those actions wicked people die, Augustine does not think that the commandment against murder has been violated.   Aquinas develops this idea further by adding what constitutes the conditions laid out by St. Augustine. The first is that the war is declared by a legitimate authority. The second is good and just motives are the reason for going to war. Basically not for self-gain or as a demonstration of power. Lastly, even in the face of violence, peace must be the central desire.   The School of Salamonica refines things further. Its main additions start with the idea that war should always be the last resort even by the stronger power. Also, it should only be used when there is reasonable odds of success – even in cases of self-defense. The last motive criteria from this school is that punishment of a tyrant or preventing one from attacking fit as just wars.   Salamonica is also the first school to add in ideas regarding conduct during the war. One of these criteria is proportionality in that the war should not inflict more harm than the evil it is aiming to avenge or prevent. This is an extension of the last resort idea, where openings for negotiations should be used. If such openings exist or reappear, the war is unjust. Then, the war must continue with popular support. If the people are against the war, they have the right to overthrow governments that continue to fight. Then attacks against civilians are unjust.   These ideas later became formalized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992. Damage inflicted by the aggressor must be grave, lasting and certain. All other means must be ineffective or impractical. Reasonable expectation of success is mentioned again. Precautions need to be taken to ensure that the war is less damaging than the evils that justified it.   Do the ents follow these guidelines? The ents motive is to stop what can easily be classified as the crime of aggression in that Isengard is attacking Fanghorn to gain resources. Attacking Rohan also counts as a war of aggression. The destruction of the forest can also be a case of the crime of genocide. The ents do not appear motivated to hold onto the territory they take or do so out any desire for the glory to be gained. Failure to act would lead to the entire destruction of the ents. These factors meet the “grave, lasting and certain” and self-defense standards.   Is the war declared by a legitimate authority? The Entmoot appears to be really democratic. Today governments are not considered legitimate unless they have popular support and Salamonica requires popular support to make war just. It seems that the Entmoot goes a long way to make the war against Isengard just.   War as a last resort is the next major element. Negotiations could not reasonably be expected to take place before even worse damage is done, possibly fatal. It also seems highly unlikely that Saruman would be the type to negotiate. The fact that he is the puppet of Mordor leaves him little room to make deals. Even if he did, Mordor would still pose a threat of equal or greater magnitude. Again, we seem to have a fit.   Let’s be honest here. The ents had a pretty good shot. They practically defeated Isengard by themselves. Not just that, they did so with at most one wounded and the entire military infrastructure and army was destroyed. Hard to say that they were really at as much of a risk as Treebeard initially suspected they were. It is a good sign from a just war perspective that Treebeard took the war seriously and desired peace.   Lastly, we have the conduct during war ideas. One of the great parts about fantasy is it is possible to actually construct a society with no innocents. All of the inhabitants of Isengard are enemy soldiers, spies or commanders. The ents thus don’t have to worry about killing civilians. Also, the ents stopped when the mission had been accomplished. It is true Saruman lived but his ability to wage war had been eliminated. Once this occurred, Treebeard actually opened negotiations with him. To me, the war was handled with the “Right conduct in war” criteria that Salamonica and the Catechism set out.   To me, the concerns for the ents would be self preservation and the elimination of the threat. The total destruction of the enemy can only be consistent with Just War Theory if the enemy is totally, irredeemibly evil. Mordor and Isengard appear to fit that bill. But should a threat arise when they can achieve their aims with less force, it seems likely that the ents would prefer that option. So, I see the ents taking a flexible response position.   Does mobilization mean war and how quick would the ents mobilize? They are to fond of doing anything quickly. Wouldn't want to be hasty. Also, not required battles would risk irreversible losses. In accordance with Just War Theory, I suspect mobilization would come when all other options appear lost and the threat is a clear and present danger. It would take a long time to get to that point. Basically, no mobilizations for the sake of displays of force the second a crisis materializes. But, I also expect that like how Russia was seen prior to World War One, the ents would mobilize as a show of force then use that to hopefully scare their enemy into backing down. Mobilization would not mean war unless this last ditch brinkmanship fails.   I suspect they would take a second strike posture. After all, they cannot afford to trade space for time. They cannot afford to let the enemy have any more access to their territory than is at all avoidable. But they cannot afford to attack "unprovoked" either. Any preemptive strike would risk the same irreplaceable deaths I discuss above. This leaves the second strike option as the only one left.   A counter force posture is the only one that is consistent with the Just War Theory. They are concerned with not just the ethics of the situation but also pragmatic concerns about the elimination of a threat. Nowhere in that logic is there room for taking actions merely to punish the enemy. If the threat is eliminated, that is enough. Targeting civilians and infrastructure for its own sake has no place in the thinking of the ents.   To me, the only secondary priority the ents would pursue would be external stability. They would recognize that wars and low scale militarized conflicts run the risk of spilling over into other regions. Just look at the fighting caused by the collapse of the German, Russian, Austria and Ottoman Empires in the wake of World War One. The refugees fleeing the Syran Civil War had and still is having a strong destabilizing impact even if we ignore the rest of the impacts of the war there. Then, in a world with medieval or First Industrial Revolution levels of technology, war means a greater destruction of forests to get the supplies needed for war. This means they would ideally wish to preserve the international satus quo instead of wishing to overthrow it.   Honestly, I would suspect the ents to try and use both diplomacy and brinkmanship to resolve a crisis. Just War Theory requires that all other means short of war be exhausted prior to declaring war. This requires negotiation and diplomacy. But, attempting brinkmanship to scare the other side into surrendering is a militarized course of action that is better than war and gives the ents a better starting position should things turn south.   Now, in terms of the normal, obedience/force/resource tools, I suspect the ents would probably rely on force to pull it off. They are essentially the economic resource and have the duty to preserve and protect the tress under their jurisdiction. So, using their "economic resources" for political concessions from other powers seems highly unlikely. They have no real international power or prestige to rely on to create automatic habits of obedience like the elves do. This leaves force.   Once war breaks out, I suspect that they would prefer the limited war doctrines. After all, they need to apply enough force to defeat the enemy. This rues out low intensity conflicts. But they would not like the deterrence, risks or punishment concepts embedded in the total war ideas.   Now, the bandwagon or balance question. Mordor and Isengard are the two most obvious threats to not just the international order in Middle Earth but also the environment. Bandwagoning with them would be suicidal for them. However, the established superpower elvish kingdoms (Lothlorien being quite close to Fanghorn) would be perfect to balance with. After all, they have shared interests in preserving the natural world and have strong cultural bonds. Lothlorien is quite close and built into the trees. This makes them - wait for it - natural allies. Also, given the role the eagles would play in the destruction of Isengard, I suspect the ents would join the eagle's ad hoc coalition in that war.   Of all the political entities in Middle Earth, Isengard, Rohan, Gondor, Lothlorien, Moria, the Glittering Caves and the Lonely Mountain are all potential threats.   Based on the quality and quantity of military forces, Rohan and Isengard are the most immediate threats. They are the closest to Fanghorn and have the biggest militaries at the start of the narrative. But after the War of the Ring, Dwarves move into the Glittering Caves. The elves are in retreat, so the former elven domains in Lothlorien and Mirkwood would possibly fall under Ent control. These would mean that all three dwarven kingdoms would now be possible enemies based off geography and military power. Mordor would only not be a threat if it is defeated before its armies get to Fanghorn. Thus, it is a long term but existential threat.   I think Rohan has the option to attack, but has no incentive to. Farming cultures are the ones most likely to burn forests to get farmland. It would be so much easier for the nomadic culture of Rohan to migrate north instead of moving into Fanghorn territory. Gondor on the other hand is such a farming civilization. It is also a culture that consumes much more wood per capital it appears than Rohan would. After the War of the Ring, the two nations are united. This would move Gondor's borders up to Fanghorn. This makes them much more of a threat after the war relative to before. The Eaterlings would pose a similar threat if they win. But again, we would need to see them win the War of the Ring first.   Isengard, with its need for territory and resources would need to attack Fanghorn for its own survival. The need to attack and destroy Rohan would also put it into conflict with Fanghorn. It needs supplies to feed the war machine and the residents could threaten the flanks of the army. The goal of global domination makes Mordor a threat the second its armies can get close enough. The same need for resources would put the dwarves on a path to conflict with the elves, but that would require both races to expand their spheres of influence in the wake of the War of the Ring.   Mordor would be a global threat. So would Gondor and the Easterlings eventually. Rohan would at best be a low intensity regional threat that most likely would not even pop up on the radar. Isengard would be a high intensity regional threat. So would the Dwarves. The dwarves, Mordor, Isengard, Gondor, the easterlings all would be expanding threats. All appear to be national (expect for Mordor, which would be multinational),traditional, military ones.