Talk:Battle of the Morannon

Untitled

60,000 does not work though, because if Sauron only had 60,000 troops after draining Mordor of his forces, then it would not be the insurmountable army that the captains of the west know they cannot defeat. Had Aragorn and Gandalf brought all of their forces from Minas Tirith to fight at the Black Gate, they might have had 20,000 men - and if the opposing force was only 60,000, they could have hoped for a military victory with only 3-1 odds against them (which were roughly the same as the odds that they fought at the Battle of the Pelennor fields). Even accepting that much of Sauron's strength was with the army in Anorien and the Easterlings attacking the Lonely Mountain, Sauron's armies are still far too few to be unbeatable on the battlefield. I'm not going to make the edit, but I think that 600,000 is definitely more what Tolkien had in mind for the Battle at the Black Gate.

Okay, now it's been three times that the number of Sauron's forces was changed from 60,000 to 600,000. Is there some passage this number is derived from? The number 60,000 comes from "ten times and more than ten times" the 6000 from Gondor. What warrant is there for 600,000? Eric119 06:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it was interpreted as 10x10x6000. That's how I read it, at least the first few times. I was actually going to change it. I might's well check now. Maeglin Lómion 07:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed the estimate to "60,000 or more". Ultimate77 19, June 2006

Pics

Maybe a better pic from movie would be better...preferably one with the black gate in site and maybe aragorn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randalllin (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Even better, an illustration; and we have one now. Uthanc 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Armyofthewest.jpg

Image:Armyofthewest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to edit the film adaptation section. Its setup is not easy to read and doesn't flow well. - Shanath18

Fair use rationale for Image:Aragornblackgate.jpg

Image:Aragornblackgate.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Khamûl

"It is not clear who commanded the field for Sauron, though Khamûl the Easterling, the second most powerful Ringwraith after the Witch-king, is a reasonable candidate"

But all eight remaining 'wraiths were playing Air Force on their pterodactyls. Don't see how Khamûl could do both. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Morannon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 06:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Herein begins the review for Good Article nomination. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. The Lead is a well written summary of the article as a whole.
   2. The Context gives a good overview of the battle as a whole and its outcome.
   3. Battle gives a succinct summary of the battle between the two forces and the outcomes for Sauron, the Ringwraiths, the Nazgûl along with the Orcs and other creatures of Sauron left directionless.
   4. The Interpretations is an important section as it captures the muthos underneath Tolkien's writings, particularly with the usage of eucatastrophe which somewhat took Christian theology by storm when he first introduced it. Nonetheless, it is a subtle motif directing the outcomes of this particular battle. References to Death and Hell, the Psalms and Matthew 16:18 are well handled.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
   1. Notes are succinct and appropriate.
   2. References: have been checked, however the statement, this list identifies each item's location in Tolkien's writings had me expecting page numbers in Tolkien's books.
   3. Secondary were examined, verified and well laid out. There is a focus on the transition from Book to Film with appropriate references.
3. It is Broad in its coverage.
   1. Broad, appropriate and not too detailed.
   2. The 'Adaptations section is timely in its coverage of historical proposals for adaptations with Tolkien's responses.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
   1. Coverage is considered neutral; there is no bias nor leaning toward one side in the battle, nor the other. History is often written from the point of view of the loser. Here, there is simply the point of view of the witness.
5. Is it stable?
   1. For an article which commenced life in 2004, it has undergone changes, with insertion of speeches, removal, and an AfD as recent as November-December 2019. Tolkien is popular and frequently taken up by young readers, account the film adaptations. There has been stability in editing during 2020, and we can expect that this article will largely retain its current form with watching from knowledgeable and experienced editors.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
   1. The talk page notes two images have been challenged and removed. Peter Jackson's film version of the battle in his 2003 The Return of the King, is appropriate, and has been used frequently on other Tolkien fan pages and wikia.
7. Overall:
   1. Pass Y

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.