Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-26890432-20170729181907/@comment-26122855-20170731032057

Sinthorion wrote: Historically? Machiavelli (and I) would disagree. Well trained militia is the heart of any successful feudal/medieval army. Following feudal standards, the regular plate armoured soldiers would be (lesser) nobles or elite troops. A standing army is only needed for guards to keep order, while actual battles should be fought by militia.

"There is not found more perilous men, then those, whiche make the warre as their arte: bicause in such case, a king is inforsed either alwaies to make warre, or to paie them alwaies, or else to bee in perill, that they take not from him his kingdome. To make warre alwaies, it is not possible: to paie them alwaies it can not be: see that of necessitie, he runneth in peril to lese the state."

- Machiavelli, The Art of War (Whitehorne's translation of 1560)

The key difference between your example and Gondor is that in lotr, Gondor is heavily dependent on it's well trained, standing military. While it's true that in fuedal Europe standing militaries weren't always needed, not many Tolkien factions are in a feudal state. Gondor is right next to Mordor, which uses "win by shear numbers" strategies. Such strategies are best countered by better trained soldiers. Gondor wouldn't have been able to hold Mordor back as long as it did if it'd been using men-at-arms like units more often than proffesional soldiers. Even though the tecehnology of Middle-Earth is medieval, it's battle heiarchial status and states of its nations is more similar to the era of the Roman Republic/Empire. Meaning large nations, with giant standing armies of profesionally trained soldiers. And if you want a more concrete example. Gondor is based off the Byzantine Empire, which depended on it's miliary for it's very surival. Without a strong standing force at all times it would have quickly been overwhelmed. (yes I know the Byzantines evenutally fell but the point still stands.)