How many orcs did aragorn kill

You should redo your count without that, and provide details of how you are counting. Only onscreen counts, so if Legolas fires an arrow offscreen then it doesn't count. Golumn was not a member of the fellowship. If we're just gonna count random non-Fellowship characters, I nominate Eru. Gollum was not picked randomly, he was acting as guide to a portion of the fellowship.

He may not have been am ideal companion but he did provide a needed service to the fellowship and Frodo took him willingly as a companion. Bellerephon - Morgoth? TGar In the question it specifically states the 9 members of the Fellowship. Gollum may have been a member of Sam, Frodo and Gollum's trio but he was not a part of the original 9 who made up the fellowship. Show 5 more comments. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.

Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. Featured on Meta. Now live: A fully responsive profile.

Upcoming Events. November Topic Challenge: Samuel R. Delany ends Nov Related Hot Network Questions. A lot more than his book counterpart. I don't think he even was that much of a badass in the novels than he is in the movies. I do know Legolas wasn't even that much of a fighter in the source material.

Better start counting! It would be interesting to know who killed the most throughout the films though. My money's on Pippin. I don't think finding arrows was so hard; there being thousands of Orcs, they would have shot thousands of arrows at Helm's Deep and a lot of them would be reuseable for Legolas. Even if Orc- arrows were of less quality than Legolas' own, he would have known how to use them. But on topic, I think Aragorn and Legolas would have killed about the same amount of Orcs. I'm glad someone agrees with me.

Yea, I agree that the arrow finding probably wasn't an issue, but it was the only comeback I could think of anyone using. On topic, I've changed my mind, I think it would have been a close race between all three although, of course, they should have killed more.

Actually, I was surprised that Gimli won the contest considering that bows and arrows are usually much more effective than axes not to mention how much easier it is to kill your opponent from ft away.

Of course, Gimli was forced into the cave with Eomer where there might have been more orcs to slay. I did feel it was a little low, but there are two possible reasons for this: A.

They were going for exact count. You had to see the orc fall and make sure he doesn't get up again. Therefore, Legolas , shooting at Orcs two hundred feet away, may have had a higher count. He wouldn't count any Orc if he suspected he'd only wounded it.

The whole time wasn't straight fighting. In the book, you have Aragorn standing on the wall. Aragorn running up the stairs and tripping. Starbrow Tolkien Fan. I imagine that arrows are most effective when you are shooting from a height into a crowd.

However, once the orcs stormed the wall, Legolas wouldn't have been able to use the bow, but would've had to fight with another weapon. Nor will every shot with an arrow be lethal. Think how many arrows it took to bring Boromir down. Can you believe it? It takes one arrow to bring a person down There were just 3 in Boromir Anyways Legolas was an archer , and his pace was highest when his archery was effective, then he slowed down in handn to hand combat.

Gimli was going slow actualy, not at all until they had Hand to Hand combat, then he flew. Game of catch up pretty much I think. Now if you're a ranger, and can shoot a bow skillfully and wield a sword skillfully then you're sort of the whole package.

Kind of like the video game actualy Saucy In love. Just no. Tolkien writes from the perspective of an in-universe author. You're taking this literally when you shouldn't be. Let it go.

Is it so hard to consider that maybe legolas was just metaphorically patting gimli on the head? And that an author can have a character say something that might not be true without it being expressly written out on the page? I mean, if every warrior could kill 40 enemies, an army of could kill a host of I find it weird how you think this is a low number. Its weird because they are in a siege setting. They have the advantage of cover. Legolas has ranged weapons and can neuter a fly a 50 paces with his bow.

Seems like Legolas at least could just fire arrow after arrow into the crowd of orcs and rack up kill after kill. In sieges you can absolutely hold an army of 40, with 1, defenders. Stuff like that has happened historically.

You could probably hold helms deep with 3 arthritic granny's with broom sticks if the orcs didn't have bombs. I don't care if you could do it in reality. In the context of the world it doesn't seem right that such powerful fighters as Legolas and Gimli only manage to kill 82 enemies.

Especially because they are on top of a wall with opponents being drip fed to them by way of ladders. For most of the siege it isn't a hectic melee. Its pockets of fighting here and there. Gimli is very short, heavy, strong, and has an axe. Theres a lot of power being hits coming from him. Legolas can neuter a fly at 50 paces while its dick is in a female fly. Seems like he could shoot an orc in the eye and take it down in one hit reliably. Borimir killing 20 Uruk-hai by himself before falling is really impressive in or out of context because he was: 1 alone, 2 surrounded, and 3 had no cover.

Its impressive he killed even 1 of them considering they had bows. The story gives us moments like this and says "this is a great and impressive feat.

Especially for a normal human". And then you have the basically demi-god elf Legolas with all the advantages of cover, allies, and not being flanked deliver unto me 41 orcs. If only Legolas had hundreds of arrows.

That just isn't feasible. Arrows must obviously be manageable to carry, and spread across many people. Given cases in history of great warriors such as that one viking guarding a bridge alone , I think it believable - especially when on the defence, holding choke-points - but very unlikely to the credit of Gimli? His feat was brilliant. Eventually you will fuck up, or grow tired - or be hit by a stray arrow.

You can't keep it up forever, no matter how good. And even if you could - you said it yourself, a battle is a bunch of skirmishes. There aren't countless enemies to fight - and many of your allies will be taking out foes - perhaps even getting in your way - blocking you from getting more kills. Around Boromir, if I remember correctly, there are only like 20 orc bodies, and he is up there with the best warriors of his time. Well, if we are considering the film, Legolas kills far more than These ladders are elevated upwards by a pulley apparatus.

Legolas uses an arrow to shoot the rope, causing one of the three massive ladders to fall backwards, instantly killing or maiming the dozens of Uruks hitching a ride on the ladder. Yes he can run out of arrows, but he can also salvage more arrows from the numerous dead Elves scattered about. And his dual short swords he held throughout the night as secondary weapons. Honestly the rate by which Legolas can accurately fire arrows should leave him a count of well over Gimli's higher count could also be attributed to the style of battle that was fought.

They're believed to be equal fighters, so the only thing that would generally sway the numbers is the field of battle. Gimli would have advantage at Helms Deep because it was such close quarters. What good is a ranged weapon when your enemy is in melee range? It's difficult to do cginfor gimli in the movie, which is unfortunate, because he really is a baddass.

It all seems rather convenient the score ended Edit: Am I the only one that finds it bewildering at how many people think Legolas was lying? Legloas claims a score of 39 earlier in the night before the wall is breached , and is clearly still actively fighting for hours after that: 'That must be my hope'' said Legolas.

Pretty sure it's only 1 knife. Iirc the double knives was a movie addition. Love that thing to death. I have always felt like Legolas lied and it was a sign of his friendship towards Gimli. Book legolas and book gimli would never do that to each other. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Legolas was not lying.

Doubtful, given Aragorn's opinion on the matter. At the same time, Legolas only kills 4 with his knife while remaining on the wall : 'Twenty-one! I remember only one time where Legalos lies in the book.

He lies on his side, hair tumbling around his face. How do you explain that Legolas only killed 2 more Orcs in the rest of the battle then? Maybe because he was primarily an archer and he ran out of arrows? Also, the wording is ambiguous - it could mean he was running low rather than totally out.