"Three parts" of an army

[alice]

I've often wondered about the statement in The Hobbit that "three parts of the goblin warriors" died in the Battle of the Five Armies. Tolkien doesn't say which parts, or how many parts there were to begin with, but I've always assumed that he meant three-quarters. Does anybody have any other, possibly more accurate, interpretations? I seem to recall another reference to "three parts" somewhere in LotR, but if there is one, it's no more illuminating.

[foxcatdog]

Maybe the intention was to be ambiguous about how much was lost but still imply a lot was lost.

[zompist]

Weird expression! Till someone finds a clearer explantion, I'd go with "3/4" also, on Gricean grounds: we assume the narrator is being informative, and he figured we could guess the denominator. And if we can guess it, it's most likely the next higher number.

From context, as foxcatdog says, it must be a large proportion. So it can't be 3/6 (the narrator would just say "half") or any higher denominator. (3/41 is right out.) 3/5 is possible, but doesn't quite fit the statement that the goblins were no longer a threat. That leaves 3/4.

[bradrn]

What about 3/10? That would also fit the ‘guess the denominator’ criterion, though not the statement they were no longer a threat.

Meanwhile, I found a site which also claims three-quarters, though with no supporting evidence other than The Hobbit.

[foxcatdog]

Just gonna state that the harry potter movies are better than the lord of the rings movies.

[Raphael]

You're mostly off topic, and arguably trolling.

[sangi39]

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questio ... y-how-many

Gives examples of other writers using "three parts" to mean "three quarters"

[foxcatdog]

At least from what i can remember tolkiens universe relies more on mystique and what is left unwritten than harries universe where ultimately everything is laid out further corroborating my points.
Also the movies are too long and the action in them is really boring leaving not much left to virtue but mystique and the strong charecterisation (no character in the lord of the rings is throwaway unlike potter which has a lot of forgettable characters). I'm shocked since by all logic a movie about flying curses and an instant death spell should feel weightless compared to sword fights but lord of the rings is that bad.

[bradrn]

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questio ... y-how-many

Gives examples of other writers using "three parts" to mean "three quarters"

Very interesting, thanks!

…

This is totally irrelevant. We’re not talking about the movies. If you want to talk about them, make your own thread — or, since I see you have done so, move this post there.

[chris_notts]

I don't know why, but my brain spontaneous decided that a part is 1/5 and 3 parts is 60%.

[zompist]

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questio ... y-how-many

Gives examples of other writers using "three parts" to mean "three quarters"

Thanks for the link. However, it provides more examples rather than any explanation. But it seems like almost everyone reads it as alice does (three parts = 3/4).

[Torco]

three quarters of an army being casualties basically means that the army doesn't exist. my immediate intuition was to read it as three tenths of the army. armies going in tenths goes back to rome, but I mean, it could just be something else. there is evidence in the text that at least some middle-earthers like to count in twelves (Bilbo's party), so three parts could be a fourth ? that is still an extremely high amount of casualties for any fighting force: it's very rare that half of your mates get killed and you keep fighting: for reference, 10% casualties require significant restructuring of, say, a regiment (maybe merging companies and platoons), 30% casualties means a fighting force is not considered combat effective, and 50% casualties means the unit is basically wiped out, such that you better just take the remaining dudes and use them to reinforce other units.

this is because military units are not like... X many soldiers and that's it: there is a lot of non-combat personnel (who are there to feed, clothe and do other thigns for the actual fellas with the guns/swords/etc, including bossing them around and shooting them if they disobey orders, officers and military police, respectively), and because most fighting forces run on various combined arms doctrines. for example, what good is your artillery spotting squad if your artillery guys are the 10% of the regimen that got wiped? but you can't just give them rifles and call them a fifth infantry platoon.... I mean, you can, but they're going to be pretty bad infantry... plus, the rest of the guys are going to have to fight without arty support... against dudes who have arty support. can you move forwards if the 10% of your regiment that got wiped out are the part of the light cavalry regiment that did all the recon? you could, but it'd be reckless! the more sophisticated the military unit is, the lower the percentage of the guys dying it takes for the entire unit to be useless, as is the case in an air wing: you could have 200 guys doing various things so that 20 planes can operate: pilots, sure, but also technicians, fuel truck drivers, engineers to build, fix and maintain runways, guys running comms, radar, air defenses, nurses, a medic or two, cooks, MPs... and you really want to be able to just send your 20 planes somewhere and have them be combat-ready in a small amount of time: this isn't the problem for the 20 planes, but it is for the cooks, for the guys who store the missiles safely, for the radar and comms guys, for the medics... so you're going to have to add, say, a few cargo planes to the air wing, with their own pilots and specialized technicians. so yeah, you could have 20 pilots and 150 non-pilots. 16% of casualties, if it's the pilots that are dead or wounded (and it's likely it will be the pilots who get dead, as they're the ones doing all of the... you know, shooting and getting shot at), means the air wing can't do much of what it's supposed to do. If that happens, you better a) get new pilots, or b) call all of the other guys home, tell them "okay, you're going to be reassigned now", give them rifles, have them go through boot camp, and *then* you can use those 150 dudes as infantry. later. your air wing is kind of dead.

granted, a 17th century regiment of foot is more heavy on the combat personnel, but still, 3/4ths of an army being casualties is like *beyond* wiped out.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I do think three-quarters is probably the best interpretation. The quote does say three parts of the warriors, and I doubt very much the goblins were running a very sophisticated operation, so it probably only includes those doing the fighting. The near non-existence of an army at that rate of depletion also goes well with the idea of the goblins no longer being a threat.