Pippin WAS a tower guard... he was sworn into the service of the White Tower...
That is really hard to believe, sounds like what Pipin would have worn, not a tower guard - well, let me just get to my books. Than we will see... So its chapter four of the first book in TROTK, right?
No Half-Elven High Numenorians there. There was Imrahil who, long ago, had an Elvish ancestor. So do the math. I'd also like to point out that you got your numbers horribly wrong - I seem to recall seven hundreds of men on foot and one company of Knights anyways.
My dear friend, did you even know that there was a city in Gondor called Dol Amroth and that city was pretty different to the rest of the country, the city under prince Imrahil? If you did not, I guess you would not know who the inhabitants of that place were.
The theory of pikes is significantly different than the theory of spears. And like I said - regardless of the movie, in none of UT or LOTR's descriptive passages are Uruk-Hai with pikes mentioned.
No pikesmen in Middle Earth - wow that is a really great statement - Saruman I guess was smart enough to give his forces swords only :-) lol And definatelly there is no way Gondor would have any, where would Gondor get spears from? They all had swords, indeed :-) probably were naked too... lol
Sorry, I guess I don't agree.
Other point - I think you agreed that force of Rohan was not superior to the Gondorian one ;
Oh, doubtless there were camps. But there was no real population, and thus no army. The rangers defended not the remnants of Arnor, but the Shire and the lands around it. That in itself should say something.
I'm pretty sure it was not just Rivendell. There were enough cities, let's see - Annuminas, Fornost, Tharbad, Long Daer, Baneketta, Ruad and these are the cities, although they as you said were pretty destroyed :-) I'm sure there would have been some villages and towns too that are not on the map. Moreover, as you said Bree maintained - so I guess it would have had something :-)
Yes, you could. So could I. There's no basis for comparison here.
Well it does not depend on material only, yet I guess you are right. However, it does not look like the towerguards have that kind of helmets in the movie. However, taking an average Gondorian soldier's helmet as an example (from the film) I could easily say - it would probably hold, since it desined to slide the hits away when the strike is blown onto owners head, most of the blows of a blunted badly forged sword that Uruk Hi had would probably do damage but not break it in half. Again here it comes to a point where there is not episode in the film where Gimli gets smashed in the head... So I guess I could be wrong...
It easily follows from both your earlier argument and most of the books that the Elves wouldn't develop any kind of steel bow - they have sufficient skill with their normal bows and it's not their style. Don't ask why, I don't fully know, but nevertheless they didn't. However Men DID develop it and DID use it and DID forget how to create it!
Where would you get so many people?
I guess Gondorians had enough time for training:-) When you are under siedge - bow is better, much better - Gondorians had to defend themselves most of the time, bow is also easier to use on horses - point for Rohirrim :-) Hei, if you say that steel bow is such an advantage, why none of the elves had them made for themselves - surely they had enough skills to forge them.
Good point for training though - that is exactly why Saruman used crossbows for his Uruks - since he did not have enough time to train them... I bet Gondorians had that time - they were not born from the pits :-)
I think you missed my point entirely with the crossbow. The bow has the advantage of versatility, cheapness in manufacture and firing rate. The crossbow has the advantage in speed of training, easy accuracy, and direct firepower. I'm not arguing against the bow - but if the bow is the be-all and end-all weapon, why did the majority of armies conscript a great deal of peasants into crossbowmen as the weapon developed? It's just a better weapon for the amount of time you need to master it.
You can't just modify a gun to change accuracy. It just.. doesn't work. Could I take an old Lee Enfield rifle and start modifying it to change the accuracy? only to a certain extent... at some point I'd need to change the ammunition and pretty much the whole rifle - which would result in something the the 74 (which uses a different caliber of bullet IIRC). FYI, the 74 is actually larger than the 47, and not that much lighter (on the order of 500 grammes, I believe).
Main reasons for change in AK model were weight and size! It was slowing down soldiers. If they wanted to change accuracy they would have modified it, which they did, few times ;-)
Ak 74 started serving Soviet army in 70's, when AK 47 was less than 30 years old :-)