Normal question. No flame. Just Normal
Conrad Dunkerson
news:7jhqv9$ql1$1...@news.casema.net...
> "Did Tolkien meant the reader to believe that the history
> of middle earth was actually the history of the earth as
> we know it?"
If you are asking whether he wanted the reader to believe that Middle
Earth was a "real" history of our world then I would have to say no - he
refers to it as fictional often enough to undermine any such attempt.
If you are asking whether he PRESENTED it as a 'real' history and noted
connections between the imagined and actual worlds, then I would have to
say yes.
So, I think the distinction here is that Tolkien presented M-E as part
of our real world and wanted the reader to 'suspend disbelief' somewhat
to imagine it for a time as part of our own history - but did not really
mean to convince people that it was anything other than fiction.
> Well, try to start a flame around that question!
It has been done.
BTW, what is the story with the follow-up newsgroup you listed for this
posting;
alt.flame.tolkien.or.something.like.that?
Michael Martinez
<7jhqv9$ql1$1...@news.casema.net> "op6063" did proclaim:
>"Did Tolkien meant the reader to believe that the history of middle earth
>was actually the history of the earth as we know it?"
No. He specifically set it in "an imaginary time in our world's past". It's
basically just a fairy tale. Nothing more.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ Mic...@xenite.org [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org..........................................................
op6063
i saw suzieflame returning. I once made the mistake of asking her to stop a
certain flame.....Bad Idea!) I thought: "Let's try to start a interesting,
contributing and preferably non-controversial discussion." But I couldn't
think of any subject that, with the present state of min of the members of
this group, wouldn't end in some personal war between ...... and ......
(pick any). So the most innocent question I could come up with is:
"Did Tolkien meant the reader to believe that the history of middle earth
was actually the history of the earth as we know it?"
Well, try to start a flame around that question!
:-)
OP6063
M Phillips
Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
<7jhtr0$mfn$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>> of middle earth was actually the history of the earth as
>> we know it?"
>
>Earth was a "real" history of our world then I would have to say no
But he did say that his stories were an attempt to create a mythology for
the English, who do not have a mythos of their own (smug comment from a
Celt). And he does have that silly attempt to have a Saxon sailor sail into
Middle-earth, sensibly dropped. I think the stories are an intellectual
exercise that got out of hand, turning into a much better book.
db
>
>"Did Tolkien meant the reader to believe that the history of middle earth
>was actually the history of the earth as we know it?"
>
>Well, try to start a flame around that question!
>
>:-)
>
>OP6063
>
Well, I could just say you're a troll, or worse... That would be a way. (Not
that I think you are!!) And you're right, it takes nothing at all to start
another flame thread, because it's nothing to do with the topics raised.
There are some strong personal resentments floating round. Still thinking of
a way to get these eminent members closer together. What drew us (all) to
this NG in the first place??? RIGHT!
About your question, I recall reading somewhere that Tolkien himself once
said that it didn't feel to him as if he made anything up. I don't know the
literal quote, but it was something along the lines of "information just
came to me, as in dreams or meditation".
Perhaps an alternate dimension, or a previous cycle of civilisation?
Definitely something I'd like to know (more about).
db
--
PS: Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
op6063
<7jhtr0$mfn$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>op6063 <op6...@casema.net> wrote in message
>BTW, what is the story with the follow-up newsgroup you listed for this
>posting;
>alt.flame.tolkien.or.something.like.that?
That was the place where I wished all the a.f.t flamers would go. :-)
OP6063
op6063
>Well, I could just say you're a troll, or worse... That would be a way.
(Not
>that I think you are!!)
Thank god!
>And you're right, it takes nothing at all to start
>another flame thread, because it's nothing to do with the topics raised.
Just the point I was trying to make.
>About your question, I recall reading somewhere that Tolkien himself once
>said that it didn't feel to him as if he made anything up. I don't know the
>literal quote, but it was something along the lines of "information just
>came to me, as in dreams or meditation".
>Perhaps an alternate dimension, or a previous cycle of civilisation?
>Definitely something I'd like to know (more about).
You mentioning an alternate dimension gave me an interesting idea. I don't
think Tolkien was familiar with the theory of parallel universes (or maybe
it wasn't even thought of when Tolkien wrote his book (but I thought Albert
E. said something about the possibility?)), but what if he had? You could
see the history of middle earth as a parallel universe to, say, the history
of the earth in the middle ages. Maybe, if evolution had allowed it, or if
the big bang had banged another way, the history of Tolkien could have
happened. And we could read all about it in our history books. Maybe someone
could write a book about the future of middle earth, parallel to OUR time.
That's an interesting issue: "If the history of middle earth is parallel to
our middle ages (say 1000 bc - 1500 ad ) what would be the parallel future
of middle earth compared to the present (which we live in).....?"
Ok, sorry, got carried away there, but I just finished "Mostly Harmless" for
the tenth time or so, and all that mocking around with parallel universes
makes you freak out a bit...
OP6063
Michael Martinez
>You could see the history of middle earth as a parallel universe to, say,
>the history of the earth in the middle ages.
You COULD, but Middle-earth is demonstrably not Medieval (starting with
Tolkien's own denials of medievality).
Tolkien viewed the story of THE LORD OF THE RINGS occuring in an imaginary
time about 6,000 years (circa 4000 BCE) -- around the dawn of current
civilization. Gondor would have been north of the Fertile Crescent, and as
the Mesopotamians and Egyptians established their great empires, the
Dunedain realms declined and ultimately disappeared (along with the last
remnants of the great Elvish and Dwarven realms).
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
RLV
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jk6sl$2vg...@Org.xenite.org>...
>In article <7jk2gs$q3$1...@news.casema.net>, "op6063" <op6...@casema.net>
wrote:
>>You could see the history of middle earth as a parallel universe to, say,
>>the history of the earth in the middle ages.
>
>You COULD, but Middle-earth is demonstrably not Medieval (starting with
>Tolkien's own denials of medievality).
>
>Tolkien viewed the story of THE LORD OF THE RINGS occuring in an imaginary
>time about 6,000 years (circa 4000 BCE) -- around the dawn of current
>civilization. Gondor would have been north of the Fertile Crescent, and as
>the Mesopotamians and Egyptians established their great empires, the
>Dunedain realms declined and ultimately disappeared (along with the last
>remnants of the great Elvish and Dwarven realms).
This may work in a symbolic way (the rise and fall of the empires), but the
technology of LOTR is far too advanced for 4000 BC. Magic aside, it is
nearer to Middle Ages. Hence the easy identification. This, and the sad
assimilation to D&D style fantasy.
R.L.V.
---#----
Michael Martinez
<375e4...@sahara.cablecat.com> "RLV" did proclaim:
>This may work in a symbolic way (the rise and fall of the empires), but the
>technology of LOTR is far too advanced for 4000 BC.
Excuse me, but since when is LOTR a historical novel? If someone writes about
Martians landing on Earth in 10,000 BC, are you going to argue their technology
is too advanced for 10,000 BC and therefore the novel must be set in the future?
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
Didier Raguet
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Date: 8 juin, 1999 19:53
Subject: Re: Normal question. No flame. Just Normal
>In article <7jk2gs$q3$1...@news.casema.net>, "op6063" <op6...@casema.net>
wrote:
>>You could see the history of middle earth as a parallel universe to, say,
>>the history of the earth in the middle ages.
>
>You COULD, but Middle-earth is demonstrably not Medieval (starting with
>Tolkien's own denials of medievality).
It depends on what you call "medieval". ME is not during medieval times, but
its civilizations have reached the cultural and technological level of the
classic middle-age (better use and diffusion of metal, beginning of workshop
economy, transition between a slavers world and modernity...). I'd rather
say that ME is more than medieval. We could discuss about that, but by mail
please. AFT is fucked up nowadays, did you notice ?
>Tolkien viewed the story of THE LORD OF THE RINGS occuring in an imaginary
>time about 6,000 years (circa 4000 BCE) -- around the dawn of current
>civilization. Gondor would have been north of the Fertile Crescent, and as
>the Mesopotamians and Egyptians established their great empires, the
>Dunedain realms declined and ultimately disappeared (along with the last
>remnants of the great Elvish and Dwarven realms).
I've read that too. But what occured to the Elven Isles colonized by Elwë's
people ? They were not drawn off the earth, unlike Aman. Atlantis ?
Didoo the Purple, Great Sorcerer of the Order of the Flying Camel
Michael Martinez
<iDz73.372$336....@news.total.net> "Didier did proclaim:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
>Date: 8 juin, 1999 19:53
>Subject: Re: Normal question. No flame. Just Normal
>>You COULD, but Middle-earth is demonstrably not Medieval (starting with
>>Tolkien's own denials of medievality).
>
>
>It depends on what you call "medieval". ME is not during medieval times, but
>its civilizations have reached the cultural and technological level of the
>classic middle-age (better use and diffusion of metal, beginning of workshop
>economy, transition between a slavers world and modernity...).
There is much in Middle-earth's technology which Tolkien took from pre-Medieval
times. He also took some things from the modern era.
>...I'd rather say that ME is more than medieval. We could discuss about that,
>but by mail please. AFT is fucked up nowadays, did you notice ?
I prefer to use the news group, however. There is always the chance that
someone will find a strong link between Middle-earth and Medieval Europe and if
so, why not let everyone see that?
So far, there has been no such strong link. At least, no one has been able to
document one. Tolkien himself, as I've pointed out, denied medieval aspects
that other people assigned to Middle-earth.
>>Tolkien viewed the story of THE LORD OF THE RINGS occuring in an imaginary
>>time about 6,000 years (circa 4000 BCE) -- around the dawn of current
>>civilization. Gondor would have been north of the Fertile Crescent, and as
>>the Mesopotamians and Egyptians established their great empires, the
>>Dunedain realms declined and ultimately disappeared (along with the last
>>remnants of the great Elvish and Dwarven realms).
>
>
>I've read that too. But what occured to the Elven Isles colonized by Elwë's
>people ? They were not drawn off the earth, unlike Aman. Atlantis ?
Elven isles? Do you mean Tol Eressea? It was indeed taken away with Aman.
Atlantis was Numenor.
The EASILY idnetifiable classical/pre-medieval structures in Middle-earth
(meaning, Tolkien provided these identifications himself) include:
Numenor -- Atlantis
Arnor/Gondor -- Egypt
Rohan/Gondor -- ancient Germans/Roman Empire
There are very large cities in Middle-earth as well (Osgiliath, Annuminas,
Pelargir) -- these are inconsistent with Medieval Europe. The large armies also
are inconsistant with Medieval Europe (50,000 Easterlings, Orcs, and whatnot
attacked Aragorn's army in one battle).
The mode of dress is very generic and is drawn from historical/prehistorical
patterns known throughout northern and southern Europe for more than 2,000
years.
The armors and weapons are mostly generic. Even chain mail is a pre-Medieval
development (although at least one person insists on starting the Middle Ages at
AD 300 partly to account for that -- I don't remember who that was). Other
types of mail armor were employed long before AD 300, going back almost 1,000
years according to some sources.
The large cavalry charges of the Rohirrim resemble the cavalry charges of
classical armies, including Alexander the Great's Companion forces.
The Shire, on the other hand, was compared by Tolkien to (I think) 17th century
rural England. At the very least he claimed to have based it largely on the
village/town of Warwick as he remembered it from his youth, so 17th or 20th
century, the Shire definitely owes it culture to modern England.
Even the Mordor Orcs are too well organized for a Medieval source, so far as I
know. They have serial numbers and large bodies of professional soldiers
supplemented by reserves or what appear to be militia (and not local levies, as
they were marched across Mordor for the final battle).
op6063
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jnhdu$2r...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>snip<
>I prefer to use the news group, however. There is always the chance that
>someone will find a strong link between Middle-earth and Medieval Europe
and if
>so, why not let everyone see that?
>So far, there has been no such strong link. At least, no one has been able
to
>document one. Tolkien himself, as I've pointed out, denied medieval
aspects
>that other people assigned to Middle-earth.
I wouldn't say there wasn't a strong link. Let me give you some examples.
- the stone fortified cities and castles that were build in the medieval
Europe could resemble the ones in middle earth. (though the latter were far
greater; I've never said LOTR wasn't a fantasy novel.
- The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weaponry used in Medieval
Europe, with beautifully decorated swords for the nobles, chain mails etc.
- The fire from Isengard which hit Helm's Deep so hard could be seen as the
re-invention of gun-powder. (maybe the medieval people thought the same
about the first cannons.
- The descriptions of clothing in LOTR also makes me think of Medieval
Europe.
I can't think of more now, but i'll be back later
OP6063
Didoo the Purple
not only Europe.
There are refs of other civilizations in LotR, specially oriental ones : the
Easterlings (Huns, Mongols), and of course the Haradrim (Middle-east Islam
civ melted with the India of the Moguls).
op6063 wrote in message <7joi79$lr8$1...@news.casema.net>...
>
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jnhdu$2r...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>
>>snip<
>
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jnhdu$2r...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>
>>snip<
>>someone will find a strong link between Middle-earth and Medieval Europe
>>and if so, why not let everyone see that?
>>So far, there has been no such strong link. At least, no one has been able
>>to document one. Tolkien himself, as I've pointed out, denied medieval
>>aspects that other people assigned to Middle-earth.
>
>
I agree you wouldn't say that. :)
> Let me give you some examples.
>- the stone fortified cities and castles that were build in the medieval
>Europe could resemble the ones in middle earth. (though the latter were far
>greater; I've never said LOTR wasn't a fantasy novel.
Er, the stone fortified cities that were built throughout the Middle East
and Europe from around 3,000 BCE onward resemble the fortifications in
Middle-earth. Keep in mind that Tolkien deliberately modelled Numenorean
post-Exilic works on Egyptian architecture (ancient Egyptian, pre-Roman).
That right there accounts for virtually ALL of the architecture we
encounter in the Third Age, with the exception of Dale and Laketown (the
latter being modelled on a reconstruction of a bronze age village built on
a lake).
>- The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weaponry used in Medieval
>Europe, with beautifully decorated swords for the nobles, chain mails etc.
The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weapons used throughout Europe
and the Mediterranean for thousands of years. As I had already mentioned.
>- The fire from Isengard which hit Helm's Deep so hard could be seen as the
>re-invention of gun-powder. (maybe the medieval people thought the same
>about the first cannons.
It could be seen as that, although we aren't actually told how the wall is
breached. Also, I have a real problem associating 12th century China with
Medieval Europe. Gunpowder made its way westward over the years but is not
generally associated with Medieval Europe (the Turks used it to defeat the
Byzantines in 1453). When most people argue that Middle-earth was
Medieval, they speak of swords and horses -- neither of which are
particularly Medieval.
>- The descriptions of clothing in LOTR also makes me think of Medieval
>Europe.
I don't see anything particular Medieval in LOTR's clothing (very little of
which is described), although the clothing from the Shire is clearly
POST-Medieval. Tunics and breeches were in use for at least a thousand
years before the Medieval period, if that's what you're referring to.
>I can't think of more now, but i'll be back later
Check Deja.Com. The arguments are all there.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Michael Martinez
>Just a remind : the medieval era includes 1000 years of the entire humanity,
>not only Europe.
That's not what my history books and professors say. Humanity progressed
at different rates in different regions. It's only in the last 100-150
years or so that the widespread civilizations of East and West have become
closely intertwined.
>There are refs of other civilizations in LotR, specially oriental ones : the
>Easterlings (Huns, Mongols), and of course the Haradrim (Middle-east Islam
>civ melted with the India of the Moguls).
Tolkien doesn't associate the Easterlings with the Huns and Mongols. Nor
does he associate the Haradrim with the Islamic Moguls. That you make such
associations doesn't mean Tolkien did.
Carl Blondin
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>
> > Let me give you some examples.
> >- the stone fortified cities and castles that were build in the medieval
> >Europe could resemble the ones in middle earth. (though the latter were far
> >greater; I've never said LOTR wasn't a fantasy novel.
>
> Er, the stone fortified cities that were built throughout the Middle East
> and Europe from around 3,000 BCE onward resemble the fortifications in
> Middle-earth. Keep in mind that Tolkien deliberately modelled Numenorean
> post-Exilic works on Egyptian architecture (ancient Egyptian, pre-Roman).
> That right there accounts for virtually ALL of the architecture we
> encounter in the Third Age, with the exception of Dale and Laketown (the
> latter being modelled on a reconstruction of a bronze age village built on
> a lake).
>
To my knowledge, which isn't all that great in architechture, the late Middle Age
cities were the first to have circular arrangements (ie: Paris), which would
recall Minas Tirith, but also many depictions of Atlantis, though I don't know
when these representations of Atlantis came about.
>
> >- The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weaponry used in Medieval
> >Europe, with beautifully decorated swords for the nobles, chain mails etc.
>
> The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weapons used throughout Europe
> and the Mediterranean for thousands of years. As I had already mentioned.
The Knights from Dol Amroth seem to be mideval, just by their name, knights are
attached to feodal Europe. ANd the feodal organisation of Minas Tirith and of
Rohan gives those two areas a distictive midevil air. Also the standards for the
different nobles would be inspired by the Middle Ages, considering the designs
used.
>
<snipped the fire part and the clothing part>
So basically, I don't find that Middle Earth has a distictive mideval feel, but
rather that Gondor has a mideval feel.
Carl
Didoo the Purple
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jpgf0$28k...@Org.xenite.org>...
>In article <qBW73.689$336....@news.total.net>, "Didoo the Purple"
<di...@total.net> wrote:
>>Just a remind : the medieval era includes 1000 years of the entire
humanity,
>>not only Europe.
>
>That's not what my history books and professors say. Humanity progressed
>at different rates in different regions. It's only in the last 100-150
>years or so that the widespread civilizations of East and West have become
>closely intertwined.
I agree when you say that Humanity progressed at different rates in
different regions. This doesn't mean that they're not in the same era. It is
an historical nonsense to say Medieval times = medieval europe. There is a
medieval islam (very rich, golden age), a medieval japan, india, china,
persia, etc. It is wrong to say that all these civs were not related, even
if the fall of Rome and the rise of christianity + islam has partly
separated north and south. The riches of northern Italy came from the silk
road (china, mid-asia, middle east, turkey, balkans, italy). European iron
and wood went to the east, via the byzantine empire.
And the unexpected result of the crusades + the turk & mongol invasions was
a re-opening of exchanges between europe, asia and africa, from India (mogul
muslim leaders) to Scandinavia. The specs of Medieval times is that the
world is not limited to mediterranean coasts, but including many
civilization era that communicate. For Europe, the superpowers of France and
England had to go through the Italians and the Byzantines (despite
theological arguments) to reach Asia and Africa.
The final result of all of this is the discovery of America by an Italian
trader who wanted to reach India as quick as possible. That's absolutely not
luck, but the result of an opening. And what do you think about the Italian
"quattrocento" (cultural golden age)? And remember that the Great Plague
came from central asia to Europe and middle-east, with the merchant
caravans. These are just examples, I could have many more. Note: I didn't
invent that. 6 years at the Sorbonne (Faculty of History) helped a lot for a
global analysis of human destiny through times (just some thought :).
BTW, let's talk about LotR. ME's Third Age is medieval. Different human
cultures have begun to interact and associate themselves (ex: alliance
between Dunedains and Northmen), the civ eras are more clearly defined.
Technology has improved, too (even orcs helped to develop warfare
tech -don't remember the quote). 2nd Age was such a mess, except for
Numeror. Just like humanity during the Roman empire (A mighty imperial
power, and outsiders=barbarians. That situation helped Sauron a lot). First
age is obviously prehistoric for most men, except for the Edains and some
easterlings (traitors !) in contact with the Elves.
>
>Tolkien doesn't associate the Easterlings with the Huns and Mongols. Nor
>does he associate the Haradrim with the Islamic Moguls. That you make such
>associations doesn't mean Tolkien did.
>
You're right. This is my own analysis, based on the few descriptions made by
Tolkien. I just think he was inspired by that. That doesn't take over the
originality of ME.
CONCLUSION:
I think ME is a superb fantasy world, because its historical progression is
realistic. That's why we can believe in it. Humanity is progressing, and
finally dominates the earth. Antiquity, Middle Ages, Modern times, these are
just words to describe the progression of humanity. But they have sense, and
correspond to a certain degree of evolution and contacts between human
groups. What makes ME trustable (FOR ME) is that we find the same
progression, with the addiction of fantasy (elves, dwarves, monsters...). A
world without history (like most AD&D worlds for ex) is impossible and
unbelievable, and fantasy is not the problem.
That is my vision of ME global history.
Comments will be appreciated (after all, AFT is made for discussion).
For MM: don't bite me please, I'm not arguing, just discussing.
I think this is a very interesting topic. Trolls will be burned alive after
chinese tortures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Didoo the Purple, Great Wizzzzzzzzzzzard of the Flying Camels
Didoo the Purple
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jpgb8$28k...@Org.xenite.org>...>>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jnhdu$2r...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>snip<
>> Let me give you some examples.
>>- the stone fortified cities and castles that were build in the medieval
>>Europe could resemble the ones in middle earth. (though the latter were
far
>>greater; I've never said LOTR wasn't a fantasy novel.
>
>Er, the stone fortified cities that were built throughout the Middle East
>and Europe from around 3,000 BCE onward resemble the fortifications in
>Middle-earth.
Except Mohenjo-Daro (valley of Indus), there is not such old heavy
fortresses. The middle-east fortresses are from around 2000 BC. Next example
is the Roman forts, but only during the Empire (-33 BC only). They (and the
celtic oppidas) were the models for the medieval fortresses. These last ones
were far more advanced, just like Gondorians and Rohirrim fortresses. You're
right about Numeror, indeed (for me, 2nd Age = Antiquity)
>Keep in mind that Tolkien deliberately modelled Numenorean
>post-Exilic works on Egyptian architecture (ancient Egyptian, pre-Roman).
>That right there accounts for virtually ALL of the architecture we
>encounter in the Third Age, with the exception of Dale and Laketown (the
>latter being modelled on a reconstruction of a bronze age village built on
>a lake).
Really ? I never saw Laketown as a bronze era village, and I don't think
Dunedains didn't evolve from Akallabeth to the War of the Ring (centuries
have passed, humanity keeps on progressing -that's what amaze the elves).
But maybe I'm wrong. give some details please.
>The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weapons used throughout Europe
>and the Mediterranean for thousands of years. As I had already mentioned.
Sorry M, but this is TOTALLY wrong. Example: the germans (including the
francs, my ancestors!) could beat the mighty romans on the battlefield
because of the superiority of their weaponry. Hard to believe, but true.
They (unlike romans and celts) were mastering iron, and invented the
medieval longsword, far better than the gladius. European weapony have
evolved dramatically with the better use of iron (forging techniques, better
mines..) and technology improvements (that includes agrarian tools, like the
scythe who replaced the sickle for ex). The ultimate result is the XV
century full-plate, impossible to make in Ancient Times.
>>- The fire from Isengard which hit Helm's Deep so hard could be seen as
the
>>re-invention of gun-powder. (maybe the medieval people thought the same
>>about the first cannons.
>
>It could be seen as that, although we aren't actually told how the wall is
>breached. Also, I have a real problem associating 12th century China with
>Medieval Europe. Gunpowder made its way westward over the years but is not
>generally associated with Medieval Europe (the Turks used it to defeat the
>Byzantines in 1453). When most people argue that Middle-earth was
>Medieval, they speak of swords and horses -- neither of which are
>particularly Medieval.
>
>>- The descriptions of clothing in LOTR also makes me think of Medieval
>>Europe.
>
>I don't see anything particular Medieval in LOTR's clothing (very little of
>which is described), although the clothing from the Shire is clearly
>POST-Medieval. Tunics and breeches were in use for at least a thousand
>years before the Medieval period, if that's what you're referring to.
>>I can't think of more now, but i'll be back later
Yes, but the easiest way to figure out ME people is with medieval clothes.
Maybe this is wrong. I'd like to know what options will Jackson take for the
movie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Didoo the Purple, Sorcerer of the Flying Camels
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> Er, the stone fortified cities that were built throughout the Middle East
>> and Europe from around 3,000 BCE onward resemble the fortifications in
>> post-Exilic works on Egyptian architecture (ancient Egyptian, pre-Roman).
>> That right there accounts for virtually ALL of the architecture we
>> encounter in the Third Age, with the exception of Dale and Laketown (the
>> latter being modelled on a reconstruction of a bronze age village built on
>> a lake).
>>
>
>Age cities were the first to have circular arrangements (ie: Paris), which would
>recall Minas Tirith, but also many depictions of Atlantis, though I don't know
>when these representations of Atlantis came about.
Maybe we should agree on something here before this goes any farther. Your
knowledge of history, my knowledge of history, and Tolkien's knowledge of
history are/were not identical. Our perceptions of Middle-earth may be
colored to some extent by our personal knowledge. That goes back to the
"Only Tolkien can envision Middle-earth correctly" adage, although he did
draw and paint scenes from Middle-earth which can give us indications of
what he had in mind.
Thet said, I can easily point you to dozens if not hundreds of
archaeological discoveries of ancient cities and towns which were built in
similar fashion to Minas Tirith (it's circular shape was based upon the
outcropping on which the city was built, btw, a fact that becomes clear
when you look at Tolkien's renderings of the city -- nor was it truly a
circle).
Minas Tirith was a planned city. They didn't build those in Medieval
Europe (at least, I'm not aware of any -- all the larger cities were mostly
founded in the classical period). As towns grew up around fortifications
and/or abbeys the people built willy-nilly. Walls were added, sometimes
more than once, in times of trouble. Paris is a very ancient city,
originally being a town for Celts on an island in the Seine. It was
anything but circular in the Medieval era (I don't know if it's circular
now). Most of the city apparently lay on the north or east side of the
river according to a map I'm looking at from the Merovingian era. Note
that I've found a second map which seems to reverse the directions.
Curiously, there is a high helmet which was found in the Seine which
resembles the Numenorean helms of the guards of Minas Tirith. It is dated
to around 1000 BCE but I don't know when it was found, when it was dated,
or whether Tolkien would have heard of it had it been found before 1940.
I'm looking at a picture of it in THE WORLD ATLAS OF ARCHAEOLOGY.
Atlantis, on the other hand, was first described by Plato -- the circles
and everything. Although much has been heaped on the legend since his
time, we still have his original text (or most of it -- there is
controversy over whether he abandoned the work in the middle of a sentence)
to study.
Walled circular enclosures go back to Neolithic times and some of them had
been excavated -- at least partially -- by the 1940s.
>
>>
>> >- The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weaponry used in Medieval
>> >Europe, with beautifully decorated swords for the nobles, chain mails etc.
>>
>> The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weapons used throughout Europe
>> and the Mediterranean for thousands of years. As I had already mentioned.
>
>The Knights from Dol Amroth seem to be mideval, just by their name, knights are
>attached to feodal Europe...
And so much for the knights of ancient Rome and Greece. No, the name is
not attached to feudal Europe. "Knight", the word, comes from a Germanic
word for a mounted warrior, but we speak a Germanic language. The knights
of Dol Amroth don't seem particularly Medieval for any reason at all.
There is no mention of chivalry, no indication that only certain men could
be knights, or that these knights were anything other than mounted
warriors.
>...ANd the feodal organisation of Minas Tirith and of Rohan gives those
>two areas a distictive midevil air...
Neither Minas Tirith nor Rohan have any sort of feudal organization.
>...Also the standards for the different nobles would be inspired by the
>Middle Ages, considering the designs used.
The Middle Ages produced extremely elaborate flags and standards.
Middle-earth's are rather simple by comparison. Too simple to be Medieval.
><snipped the fire part and the clothing part>
>
>So basically, I don't find that Middle Earth has a distictive mideval feel, but
>rather that Gondor has a mideval feel.
Gondor is most like the classical world of all Middle-earth. Tolkien
specifically associated it with ancient Egypt.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>
>> The large armies also are inconsistant with Medieval Europe (50,000
>> Easterlings, Orcs, and whatnot attacked Aragorn's army in one battle).
>
>alliance of evil forces. There are instances in medieval times around europe
>where massive armies like 40000 goths and 100,000 turks fought with Byzantine
>armies. Yeah they are to the east a bit, which seems consistant with middle
>earth, as the larger forces were often assembled in the east. I find it
>inconsistant with the numerous petty squabbling wars in the west and central
>areas of europe ; but I'm sure if Tolkien set himself to detail such things,
>it would be at cost to the rest.
The Byzantines were able to maintain classical civilization. They never
became Medieval.
>> The mode of dress is very generic and is drawn from historical/prehistorical
>> patterns known throughout northern and southern Europe for more than 2,000
>> years.
>
>I've read your post directed to Peter jackson regarding the attire of the
>men of Gondor and elves a while back. It will be interesting to see what
>they come up with, but I doubt we'll be seeing Roman/Egypt style Gondorians.
I doubt that as well. John Howe's involvement in the project will almost
certainly guarantee a non-canonical representation of the clothing (Tolkien
specifically said it should have been appropriate to the climate -- he did
not associate clothing in Middle-earth with any period of European
history). He did suggest Gondor would have a Mediterranean climate.
>> The large cavalry charges of the Rohirrim resemble the cavalry charges of
>> classical armies, including Alexander the Great's Companion forces.
>
>Were there wainriders/chariots? in the War of the ring ? Or had they gone
>out of fashion - at least in Tolkiens decription ? If not then I guess I
>see resemblance with the warfare of the end of the Roman empire and beginning
>of cavalry dominance, but I guess you've heard that one before.
I don't recall any wainriders or chariots in the War of the Ring. And,
yes, I've heard that one before, but since Tolkien studied the classics (he
read them in the original Greek and Latin) he was well aware that Alexander
and the Parthians achieved cavalry superiority long before the Romans began
using Gothic cavalry in their campaigns. Cavalry charges are by no means
peculiar to the Medieval period and, if anything, that would have been the
period with the smallest numbers of cavalry in use by any average army.
>> Even the Mordor Orcs are too well organized for a Medieval source, so far
>> as I know. They have serial numbers and large bodies of professional
>> soldiers supplemented by reserves or what appear to be militia (and not
>> local levies, as they were marched across Mordor for the final battle).
>
>An obvious difference between Mordor and Europe is the clear unquestionable
>superiority of Sauron and his subtle control over the orcs. There's no
>bickering nobles questioning the highest authority in Mordor and they all
>seem to know their place in the scheme of things. I think this is important
>in the organisation and unification of the orc forces.
True. Sauron definitely didn't have any noble class among his Orcs, or at
best only had a very primitive one.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jpgf0$28k...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>That's not what my history books and professors say. Humanity progressed
>>at different rates in different regions. It's only in the last 100-150
>>years or so that the widespread civilizations of East and West have become
>>closely intertwined.
>
>
>I agree when you say that Humanity progressed at different rates in
>different regions. This doesn't mean that they're not in the same era. It is
The word is just Latin for "middle age". "middle ages" (and "dark ages")
abound in history, but they are not all associated with the same regions
and period. Medieval China, for instance, is associated with the period
beginning in 220 CE -- much too early for Europe's Medieval period.
>There is a medieval islam (very rich, golden age), a medieval japan,
>india, china, persia, etc. It is wrong to say that all these civs were not
>related, even if the fall of Rome and the rise of christianity + islam has
>partly separated north and south.
What is wrong is to suggest that their historical and cultural progressions
were closely intertwined. They were not and that is easily demonstrated.
The civilizations of the Chinese region had no direct contact with the
civilizations of the Mediterranean region. Rome was stopped in its
eastward march by the Parthians and other peoples who in turn were not able
to conquer India. Alexander's conquests were a fluke and his empire lasted
only ten years. His influences in some regions died out quickly, while
they lasted for centuries in others (notably in the Mediterranean area,
where Greek civilization flourished).
>...The riches of northern Italy came from the silk road (china, mid-asia,
>middle east, turkey, balkans, italy)...
If northern Italy's economy were really based on the silk trade there would
have been considerable effort to control the eastern routes. But northern
Italy had other economic interests.
>...European iron and wood went to the east, via the byzantine empire...
Not very far. Iron mines are found throughout Asia, and trees grow all
over the world. These items are simply too mundane to be useful for
long-distance trade.
>...And the unexpected result of the crusades + the turk & mongol invasions was
>a re-opening of exchanges between europe, asia and africa, from India (mogul
>muslim leaders) to Scandinavia...
Meaning they were cut off from one another for a period of time. But prior
to the Medieval period the great classical civilizations were little more
than rumor to one another.
>...The specs of Medieval times is that the world is not limited to
>mediterranean coasts, but including many civilization era that
>communicate...
No. The medieval periods of various regions do not coincide. There is
some overlap, but the term itself is anachronistically applied by modern
scholars as an arbitrary distinction. There was very little interchange
between the various civilizations until the development of modern rapid
transit technologies: steam powered ships and railroads. Once large
numbers of people and goods could be exchanged, the civilizations of the
world began to merge. Some anthropologists (perhaps most) would insist the
process has not been completed.
>...For Europe, the superpowers of France and England had to go through the
>Italians and the Byzantines (despite theological arguments) to reach Asia
>and Africa...
England and France did not technically reach (let alone start trying to do
so) Asia and Africa until after the Medieval period. The English began
their voyages of discovery under the Tudors.
>The final result of all of this is the discovery of America by an Italian
>trader who wanted to reach India as quick as possible. That's absolutely not
>luck, but the result of an opening...
Well, most people give credit to the Vikings for finding America first (and
they left records of the discovery, but the rest of Europe paid little or
no attention to them). Nonetheless, Columbus found the Americas in the
1490s. It's a real stretch of the imagination to suggest he was a Medieval
explorer, even though many people extend the European Middle Ages to 1500.
Constantinople had fallen to the Turks almost 40 years previously. The
crusades were by then a matter of legend. Spain had finally been reunited
after 780 years of internal conflict.
>...And what do you think about the Italian "quattrocento" (cultural golden
>age)? And remember that the Great Plague came from central asia to Europe
>and middle-east, with the merchant caravans...
That a plague carried by rats ravaged Europe means nothing. Europe
suffered many plagues, and they go back to classical times (undoubtedly
further than that). For that matter, we've had great epidemics almost on a
yearly basis over the past 100 years. They didn't have to cope with those
problems 600 years ago.
>...These are just examples, I could have many more. Note: I didn't
>invent that. 6 years at the Sorbonne (Faculty of History) helped a lot for a
>global analysis of human destiny through times (just some thought :).
I'm surprised.
>BTW, let's talk about LotR. ME's Third Age is medieval.
Not even close.
>...Different human cultures have begun to interact and associate
>themselves (ex: alliance between Dunedains and Northmen),
Excuse me? That process had been going on for thousands of years in
Middle-earth.
>...the civ eras are more clearly defined.
The civilizations were in decline and retracting.
>Technology has improved, too (even orcs helped to develop warfare
>tech -don't remember the quote)...
No, much technology had been lost. It resembles the "dark ages" in the
eastern Mediterranean of Circa 1200 - 800 BCE, actually.
>...2nd Age was such a mess, except for Numeror...
No, the Second Age was the height of Elven and Dwarven civilization in
Middle-earth, actually. Whereas the great achievements of the First Age
were divided between Aman and Beleriand, the rise of the second Eldarin
civilization in the Second Age was wholly a Middle-earthian event, and it
impacted a much broader region than Beleriand (the Sindarin colonization of
the Silvan Elves in the east is a part of the whole process).
There were many Men who benefitted from the Elven civilization, at least
through the middle of the Second Age.
>...Just like humanity during the Roman empire (A mighty imperial
>power, and outsiders=barbarians. That situation helped Sauron a lot)...
The Roman Empire is generally considered anything but a "mess" except for
the last 100-150 years of its pre-476 history. Ever hear of the 200 year
long Pax Romana? 50,000,000+ people lived in peace throughout the
Mediterranean world and much for Europe. Nothing like it has occured since
that time. And Roman Law remains the foundation for many countries' legal
systems today, even if Napolean did undo that a little bit throughout
Europe.
>...First age is obviously prehistoric for most men, except for the Edains
>and some easterlings (traitors !) in contact with the Elves.
On this much we can agree.
>>Tolkien doesn't associate the Easterlings with the Huns and Mongols. Nor
>>does he associate the Haradrim with the Islamic Moguls. That you make such
>>associations doesn't mean Tolkien did.
>
>You're right. This is my own analysis, based on the few descriptions made by
>Tolkien. I just think he was inspired by that. That doesn't take over the
>originality of ME.
Tolkien based the Orcs on the Huns, if you must make some sort of
identification. People have compared his mounted Haradrim to Arabic
cavalry, not necessarily of the Muslim period. The Indian connection with
the Mumakil/Oliphaunts actually resembles classical uses of elephants in
the Mediterranean, although Tolkien's Oliphaunts appear to have been larger
than the elephants of northern Africa and India.
>CONCLUSION:
>
>I think ME is a superb fantasy world, because its historical progression is
>realistic. That's why we can believe in it. Humanity is progressing, and
>finally dominates the earth. Antiquity, Middle Ages, Modern times, these are
>just words to describe the progression of humanity. But they have sense, and
>correspond to a certain degree of evolution and contacts between human
>groups. What makes ME trustable (FOR ME) is that we find the same
>progression, with the addiction of fantasy (elves, dwarves, monsters...). A
>world without history (like most AD&D worlds for ex) is impossible and
>unbelievable, and fantasy is not the problem.
Middle-earth's history as presented by Tolkien is mostly a history of the
Elves. It documents their rise, fall, second rise, decline, and departure.
Men figure prominently in that history by they go through a rise, a fall,
a second rise, and a decline. At the end of the Third Age Aragorn
initiates a restoration that will only last a brief time. Tolkien viewed
Middle-earth as a pre-classical, pre-historic world with it's own histories
and legends. It was a world that came to an end someone in the ages
in-between the Third Age and this one, and was replaced by the more mundane
world we have today.
>For MM: don't bite me please, I'm not arguing, just discussing.
I really wish you people would quit posting this bullshit. *I* am not the
person who initiates the flame wars. I don't bite or attack anyone for
disagreeing with me. That is a lie promoted time and time again by the
people who resort to that very kind of tactic. Please do me the courtesy
of accepting the truth for a change. This is extremely wearying.
Michael Martinez
>
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jpgb8$28k...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>In article <7joi79$lr8$1...@news.casema.net>, "op6063" <op6...@casema.net>
>>Er, the stone fortified cities that were built throughout the Middle East
>>and Europe from around 3,000 BCE onward resemble the fortifications in
>>Middle-earth.
>
>fortresses. The middle-east fortresses are from around 2000 BC.
Last time I checked, 2000 BCE came after 3000 BCE. My words were "from
around 3,000 BCE onward", which was in no way meant to imply they all
appeared at once.
>...Next example is the Roman forts, but only during the Empire (-33 BC
>only). They (and the celtic oppidas) were the models for the medieval
>fortresses. These last ones were far more advanced, just like Gondorians
>and Rohirrim fortresses. You're right about Numeror, indeed (for me, 2nd
>Age = Antiquity)
The Celtic oppida go back far before the Medieval period, although some
were built by Greek architects. I don't recall if the Lusatians used stone
fortifications, but I know they had fortified towns in northern Europe
(often on hills) going back as far as 1400 BCE.
Medieval fortresses were hardly designed based on Celtic lines, though.
The oppida were essentially fortified towns and cities (Caesar describes
some of them, but archaeology has brought a lot of information to light).
The early Medieval forts were basically towers on hills or mounds, if even
that. Sometimes just a house surrounded by a hedge or a wooden wall.
The Gondorian fortifications (and nearly all the Rohirric fortifications in
the book are Numenorean in origin) mostly date from the founding of Gondor,
a time when Numenorean civilization had just ended. There is no connection
between this architecture and Medieval Europe, especially as Tolkien
himself specifically stated it was comparable to ancient Egypt's
architecture (how often is this fact going to be disregarded for the
convenience of arguing an untenable Medieval connection?).
And the Greeks and Myceneans also built some circular fortifications. The
lay of the land often dictated how a city would grow.
>>Keep in mind that Tolkien deliberately modelled Numenorean
>>post-Exilic works on Egyptian architecture (ancient Egyptian, pre-Roman).
>>That right there accounts for virtually ALL of the architecture we
>>encounter in the Third Age, with the exception of Dale and Laketown (the
>>latter being modelled on a reconstruction of a bronze age village built on
>>a lake).
>
>
>Really ? I never saw Laketown as a bronze era village,..
Tolkien modelled the town on the village. That doesn't mean he set
Middle-earth in the Bronze Age any more than he set it in the Middle Ages
of Europe. It was set in an imaginary pre-classical age.
>...and I don't think Dunedains didn't evolve from Akallabeth to the War of
>the Ring (centuries have passed, humanity keeps on progressing -that's
>what amaze the elves).
No, it doesn't progress. It regresses. Faramir's speech to Frodo in
"Henneth Annun" makes this much clear: just as the Northmen have become a
little more like the Dunedain, the Dunedain have become more like the
Rohirrim. And there are numerous references to the lost knowledge of
Numenor.
>But maybe I'm wrong. give some details please.
Details are archived on Deja.Com.
>>The weaponry in LOTR closely resembles the weapons used throughout Europe
>>and the Mediterranean for thousands of years. As I had already mentioned.
>
>Sorry M, but this is TOTALLY wrong.
No, it's totally right.
>...Example: the germans (including the francs, my ancestors!) could beat
>the mighty romans on the battlefield because of the superiority of their
>weaponry. Hard to believe, but true.
No, most of the time they just ended up starving somewhere in the middle of
the empire. The Franks weren't superior to the Romans. Name one major
battle in which the Franks defeated the Romans through superior technology?
There weren't even any Franks until the 3rd century (at least, the Romans
don't mention Franks until then, though some of the tribes existed prior to
that time).
>...They (unlike romans and celts) were mastering iron, and invented the
>medieval longsword, far better than the gladius...
I hate to bust your bubble, but the Romans and Celts both mastered iron
before the Germans. La Tene and Halstatt Celtic swords with blades of 30
inches or longer have been found in southern Europe.
>...European weapony have evolved dramatically with the better use of iron
>(forging techniques, better mines..) and technology improvements (that
>includes agrarian tools, like the scythe who replaced the sickle for ex).
>The ultimate result is the XV century full-plate, impossible to make in
>Ancient Times.
Full body metal armorings first appeared in the second millenium BCE,
although their styles were considerably different from those of the 14th
century CE.
>>I don't see anything particular Medieval in LOTR's clothing (very little of
>>which is described), although the clothing from the Shire is clearly
>>POST-Medieval. Tunics and breeches were in use for at least a thousand
>>years before the Medieval period, if that's what you're referring to.
>>>I can't think of more now, but i'll be back later
>
>
>Yes, but the easiest way to figure out ME people is with medieval clothes.
I don't see that at all. They appear to have worn fairly simple dress, as
Tolkien didn't really dwell on such details, and the prehistoric tunics and
breeches of pre-Medieval Europe appear to fit the northern climate of
Middle-earth just fine.
>Maybe this is wrong. I'd like to know what options will Jackson take for the
>movie.
We'll have to wait and see.
softrat
Methinks thou protesteth too much.
Why do you suppose that virtually everyone picks up the Martinez ball
and runs with it? Oh. Yeah! We're all 'assholes'! Now it's all clear.
the softrat
Michael Martinez
>On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:28:55 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>
Why, because you like to flame me at every opportunity, even if you have to
manufacture them? And then you send me private email asking me to stop the
flame wars.
Why do you suppose that you always come across as such a hypocrite,
Softrat?
Öjevind Lång
Michael that Middle-earth can't simply be regarded as some kind of
alternative "Medieval world". It is a world of the imagination which
contains elements that one can find in various cultures from the Bronze Age
to the Modern Era. However, since history was my main subject at the
university, I can't help wanting to add my two groats of worth.
Michael Martinez hath written:
>In article <ale83.880$336....@news.total.net>, "Didoo the Purple"
<di...@total.net> wrote:
>>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jpgf0$28k...@Org.xenite.org>...
<snip>
>>
>>I agree when you say that Humanity progressed at different rates in
>>different regions. This doesn't mean that they're not in the same era. It
is
>>an historical nonsense to say Medieval times = medieval europe...
>
>The word is just Latin for "middle age". "middle ages" (and "dark ages")
>abound in history, but they are not all associated with the same regions
>and period. Medieval China, for instance, is associated with the period
>beginning in 220 CE -- much too early for Europe's Medieval period.
>
Correct. "The Middle Ages" is an artificial abstraction to begin with, a
crutch to make history easier to handle and sort. The European Middle Ages
were definitely not part of some kind of global "Middle Ages" extending
everywhere. China had its own Middle Ages, and so on.
<snip>
>What is wrong is to suggest that their historical and cultural progressions
>were closely intertwined. They were not and that is easily demonstrated.
>The civilizations of the Chinese region had no direct contact with the
>civilizations of the Mediterranean region. Rome was stopped in its
>eastward march by the Parthians and other peoples who in turn were not able
>to conquer India. Alexander's conquests were a fluke and his empire lasted
>only ten years. His influences in some regions died out quickly, while
>they lasted for centuries in others (notably in the Mediterranean area,
>where Greek civilization flourished).
Again, true. The Romans did have trade connections with India through ships
from the Red Sea, and Roman coins have been found as far away as Indo-China;
but even the trade relations with India were a very minor factor in the
general economic picture of Rome.
The Romans imported some silk from China, but it was done through
intermediaries and the silk was fantastically expensive. People who did not
defecate gold had to make do with Greek silk, which was of a much inferior
quality.
As for Alexander the Great: it is true that his kingdom broke apart at his
death and that genuine Greek kingdoms did not last very long beyond the
Mediterranean, but he did leave lasting traces further east, and his memory
continues to fascinate people as far away as India. The Urdu name for him is
Iskander Tulkan. Bactria (which roughly corresponds to present-day
Afghanistan) continued to be ruled by various mongrelized Greek monarchs
until the 2nd Centure A. D. The influence of Greek art was felt in a wide
area, not least in Buddhist art; in Central Asia, for example, archeologists
have found ancient mosaics in which Buddha is depicted with a laurel
wreath - a Greek symbol for holiness.
>>...The riches of northern Italy came from the silk road (china, mid-asia,
>>middle east, turkey, balkans, italy)...
>
>If northern Italy's economy were really based on the silk trade there would
>have been considerable effort to control the eastern routes. But northern
>Italy had other economic interests.
Well, the Medieval Italians did try to control the eastern trade in spices
and silk, since it was so very profitable. That was, for example, the reason
why Marco Polo, his father and his uncle travelled east to make trade
acquaintances. It was also why the the Italian city-states established
permanent strongholds in the Black Sea area. But it is true that the
merchant cities of northern Italy had many other irons in the fire; the wool
trade from the Netherlands and England is only one example.
By the way, did you know that the Lord Chancellor, the Leader of the House
of Lords, to this day presides on the woolsack as an acknowledgement of the
importance of the wool trade for Early Modern England? That is to say, even
aristocrats in England freely admitted that trade was the true strength of
the country. No wonder that the noblemen in the rest of Europe well into the
19th Century sneered at the English as "a nation of shopkeepers"! They were,
and that's why they built the mightiest navy in the world to protect their
trade interests, and that's how they ruled the waves, and that's how the
British Empire came into being...
>
<snip>
> But prior to the Medieval period the great classical civilizations were
little more
>than rumor to one another.
Completely true.
>>...The specs of Medieval times is that the world is not limited to
>>mediterranean coasts, but including many civilization era that
>>communicate...
>
>No. The medieval periods of various regions do not coincide. There is
>some overlap, but the term itself is anachronistically applied by modern
>scholars as an arbitrary distinction.
MM hath the right of it.
<snip>
>
>>The final result of all of this is the discovery of America by an Italian
>>trader who wanted to reach India as quick as possible. That's absolutely
not
>>luck, but the result of an opening...
>
>Well, most people give credit to the Vikings for finding America first (and
>they left records of the discovery, but the rest of Europe paid little or
>no attention to them). Nonetheless, Columbus found the Americas in the
>1490s. It's a real stretch of the imagination to suggest he was a Medieval
>explorer, even though many people extend the European Middle Ages to 1500.
>Constantinople had fallen to the Turks almost 40 years previously. The
>crusades were by then a matter of legend. Spain had finally been reunited
>after 780 years of internal conflict.
Most historians use the year 1492 as the end of the Middle Ages in Europe,
because that was the year in which Columbus sailed to America as well as the
year when Granada, the last Moorish kingdom in Spain, was conquered by the
Spaniards. Of course, they take pains to say that all such definite datings
are ultimately artificial and arbitrary. People didn't wake up one morning
and exclaim: "Hey, we're in the Modern Era now!"
>
>>...And what do you think about the Italian "quattrocento" (cultural golden
>>age)? And remember that the Great Plague came from central asia to Europe
>>and middle-east, with the merchant caravans...
The quattrocento was the beginning of the Renaissace, which of course is
regarded as the preparatory stage for new cultural patterns that demarcate
the gradual ending of the Middle Ages.
>That a plague carried by rats ravaged Europe means nothing. Europe
>suffered many plagues, and they go back to classical times (undoubtedly
>further than that). For that matter, we've had great epidemics almost on a
>yearly basis over the past 100 years. They didn't have to cope with those
>problems 600 years ago.
Great plagues have afflicted mankind many times throughout history. There
was, for example, the terrible outbreak of the plague in Athens in the 430s
B. C. which destroyed one fourth of the population and has been described by
Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War. Still, 600 years ago we
had the Black Death, a devastating new strain of bubonic plague which killed
off one third of all people from Japan to Ireland. In Eastern Europe, the
result was cultural and econmic decline. It is hard to believe that Tolkien
did not have this event in mind when he described the Great Plague that
sapped the strength of Gondor during the reign of King Telemnar and killed
him as well as his cildren.
<snip>
>
>>BTW, let's talk about LotR. ME's Third Age is medieval.
>
>Not even close.
As I wrote at the outset, it's meaningless to try to equate any period in
the history of Middle-earth with any historical period in the real world.
One can only find stimulating parallels and possible influences.
<snip>
>
>>Technology has improved, too (even orcs helped to develop warfare
>>tech -don't remember the quote)...
I just remember that the passage was not entirely complementay about the
modern engines of warfare. The theory advanced by Tolkien that the Orcs had
a considerable hand in the development of them was not intended as praise
for the Orcs.
>
>No, much technology had been lost. It resembles the "dark ages" in the
>eastern Mediterranean of Circa 1200 - 800 BCE, actually.
I agree that it's a good parallel, if not taken too far. Then, of course,
much knowledge was also lost during the first centuries of the Middle Ages.
The Middle Ages as a whole were not as ignorant and crude as they often are
depicted as.
>
<snip>
>
>The Roman Empire is generally considered anything but a "mess" except for
>the last 100-150 years of its pre-476 history. Ever hear of the 200 year
>long Pax Romana? 50,000,000+ people lived in peace throughout the
>Mediterranean world and much for Europe. Nothing like it has occured since
>that time. And Roman Law remains the foundation for many countries' legal
>systems today, even if Napolean did undo that a little bit throughout
>Europe.
>
The Roman Law has indeed had a profound impact on the legal systems of
Western European conuntries. Still, the impact has not been equally great
everywhere. The British Isles and Scandinavia, for example, largely evolved
their legal systems without any help from the Roman Law.
<snip>.
>
>Tolkien based the Orcs on the Huns, if you must make some sort of
>identification. People have compared his mounted Haradrim to Arabic
>cavalry, not necessarily of the Muslim period.
Still, considering that Osgiliath, according to Tolkien, was situated
roughly where Constantinople (Istanbul) is now, and that Umbar was equally
roughly at the site of Alexandria, the thought that the battles against the
"infidel" people of Umbar were to some extent inspired by the conflicts
between Christians and Muslims is not entirely without merit. It is an
interesting point that the Corsairs of Umbar had black sails on their ships,
just like the Egyptian, Muslim Corsairs that ravaged the Christian
Mediterranean lands and plundered their ships for much of the Middle Ages
and well into the Modern Era.
The Indian connection with
>the Mumakil/Oliphaunts actually resembles classical uses of elephants in
>the Mediterranean, although Tolkien's Oliphaunts appear to have been larger
>than the elephants of northern Africa and India.
Yes; a very clear parallel.
<snip>
>
>Middle-earth's history as presented by Tolkien is mostly a history of the
>Elves. It documents their rise, fall, second rise, decline, and departure.
> Men figure prominently in that history by they go through a rise, a fall,
>a second rise, and a decline. At the end of the Third Age Aragorn
>initiates a restoration that will only last a brief time. Tolkien viewed
>Middle-earth as a pre-classical, pre-historic world with it's own histories
>and legends. It was a world that came to an end someone in the ages
>in-between the Third Age and this one, and was replaced by the more mundane
>world we have today.
Again, I completely agree.
Öjevind
Didoo the Purple
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jrv2n$u8_...@Org.xenite.org>...>>snip>
>
>
>If northern Italy's economy were really based on the silk trade there would
>have been considerable effort to control the eastern routes. But northern
>Italy had other economic interests.
False. Check your books before saying that. Have you ever heard of the
Venetian commercial empire?
Is Marco Polo a myth ? Why do you think N-Italy was so rich, despite
political turmoil ? Because it was the trade link between north, south and
east (not west for the moment).
>>...European iron and wood went to the east, via the byzantine empire...
>
>Not very far. Iron mines are found throughout Asia, and trees grow all
>over the world. These items are simply too mundane to be useful for
>long-distance trade.
You can't deny that there were exchanges, even if they're not massive
industrial exchanges as in our world.
>snip>
>No. The medieval periods of various regions do not coincide. There is
>some overlap, but the term itself is anachronistically applied by modern
>scholars as an arbitrary distinction. There was very little interchange
>between the various civilizations until the development of modern rapid
>transit technologies: steam powered ships and railroads. Once large
>numbers of people and goods could be exchanged, the civilizations of the
>world began to merge. Some anthropologists (perhaps most) would insist the
>process has not been completed.
When Europe developed railroad and steam power, It was for conquest, not
exchange.
(Tell your Native American friends about "exchange" with the iron horse)
The exchange was highly accelerated between western nations only.
>>...For Europe, the superpowers of France and England had to go through the
>>Italians and the Byzantines (despite theological arguments) to reach Asia
>>and Africa...
>
>England and France did not technically reach (let alone start trying to do
>so) Asia and Africa until after the Medieval period. The English began
>their voyages of discovery under the Tudors.
I didn't mean discovering all africa or asia.
So, the crusades and the latin kingdoms never took place in mid-east, and
egypt is not africa. Oh, yes... North african muslims (not arabs. berbers)
never invaded spain, south france and italy, sicilia, etc.
>>The final result of all of this is the discovery of America by an Italian
>>trader who wanted to reach India as quick as possible. That's absolutely
not
>>luck, but the result of an opening...
>
>Well, most people give credit to the Vikings for finding America first (and
>they left records of the discovery, but the rest of Europe paid little or
>no attention to them). Nonetheless, Columbus found the Americas in the
>1490s. It's a real stretch of the imagination to suggest he was a Medieval
>explorer, even though many people extend the European Middle Ages to 1500.
>Constantinople had fallen to the Turks almost 40 years previously. The
>crusades were by then a matter of legend. Spain had finally been reunited
>after 780 years of internal conflict.
The vikings had just a little settlement. They were there because it was
close to groenland (discovered by Erik the Red, a Norse. His son Leif
Eriksson discovered america). Colombus was madated by the spanish crown to
find a better way to Asia, because the portuguese already controlled the
eastern road. And the Medieval period ends in 1492 for us (1453 for some
historians, with the fall of Bysance -another interaction with asian
people).
And if you call the spanish Reconquista an internal conflict, well... read
some REAL history books instead of saying such a nonsense.
>>...And what do you think about the Italian "quattrocento" (cultural golden
>>age)? And remember that the Great Plague came from central asia to Europe
>>and middle-east, with the merchant caravans...
>
>That a plague carried by rats ravaged Europe means nothing.
Yes it does. Lake Baïkal is quite far away. You should take infos about the
origins and causes of the Pest.
>Europe suffered many plagues, and they go back to classical times
(undoubtedly
>further than that).
This one wiped out the third of european population, and almost destroyed a
big part of classical medieval civ (social structures, economic and
demographic development, the way people saw death..). A detail.
>For that matter, we've had great epidemics almost on a
>yearly basis over the past 100 years. They didn't have to cope with those
>problems 600 years ago.
See message on top
>>...These are just examples, I could have many more. Note: I didn't
>>invent that. 6 years at the Sorbonne (Faculty of History) helped a lot for
a
>>global analysis of human destiny through times (just some thought :).
>
>I'm surprised.
So, you think that Jacques LeGoff, Francois Furet or Robert Fossier theories
and essays on pre-modern civs are bullshit ? These were my Professors, and
they're some the most respected medievists in all europe and further. Sorry
if I don't mention english or german great medievists, but I just studied
once Medieval Islam (yes, MM, it exists) with a german prof from Köln but I
don't remember his name. God, how could these people allow me to achieve a
Master Degree, I'm such an ignorant!
But of course, everybody on this planet is an asshole and you're the only
one who knows.
About LotR : you're really more convincing when you speak about Tolkien. I
forgot about dwarves and elves in 2nd age. Yes, you were right. I was mostly
talking about humans, indeed.
>
>>For MM: don't bite me please, I'm not arguing, just discussing.
>
>I really wish you people would quit posting this bullshit. *I* am not the
>person who initiates the flame wars. I don't bite or attack anyone for
>disagreeing with me. That is a lie promoted time and time again by the
>people who resort to that very kind of tactic. Please do me the courtesy
>of accepting the truth for a change. This is extremely wearying.
OH REALLY MISTER MARTINEZ ? Now you went too far, after mocking my Profs.
You piss on the head of everybody without using "bad words", that's clever.
Reading your posts, I know that you can attract nice people like Mike Scott
to a stupid argument. I don't think this month floods of post about you is
just a plot or a cabal from your so-called enemies. You deserved it.
"Please do me the courtesy of accepting the truth for a change": hahaha. And
you think you're always the truth? I have never seen such a pretentious
person. Sorry Master if I can't see your ligth, I'm just an asshole like the
others (just to quote you).
Don't worry, I won't continue to flame, troll or do anything like that. *I*
have a life and not enough time to spend to go through that nasty kidplay
for immature people. That's good for wankers.
After reading your other responses to my posts (same tone), I definitely
quit this NG, so you will loose your time by responding to me. Do me a
favor, don't mail me ever.
BTW, all you people here should rename this NG "alt.fan.martinez".
Didoo the Purple is DEAD, long live AFM !
Conrad Dunkerson
news:%Lv83.1009$336....@news.total.net...
> After reading your other responses to my posts (same
> tone), I definitely quit this NG, so you will loose your
> time by responding to me. Do me a favor, don't mail me
> ever.
I'll never understand why so many people leave. If people stayed rather
than allowing themselves to be driven off abusive tactics would be far
less effective. Mind you, I well understand the need to get away from
the nonsense at times but that shouldn't require a permanent retreat.
> BTW, all you people here should rename this NG
> "alt.fan.martinez".
Heh. Hardly that. Michael may sometimes dominate the newsgroup just by
bullying his way through, but we hardly thank him for it.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez hath written:
>
>Great plagues have afflicted mankind many times throughout history. There
>was, for example, the terrible outbreak of the plague in Athens in the 430s
>B. C. which destroyed one fourth of the population and has been described by
>Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War. Still, 600 years ago we
>had the Black Death, a devastating new strain of bubonic plague which killed
>off one third of all people from Japan to Ireland. In Eastern Europe, the
>result was cultural and econmic decline. It is hard to believe that Tolkien
>did not have this event in mind when he described the Great Plague that
>sapped the strength of Gondor during the reign of King Telemnar and killed
>him as well as his cildren.
That is nonetheless not a medieval "thing". Simply having a plague doesn't
make a world medieval. Nor is a plague a sign of medievality. Plagues are
just a part of human existence. Tolkien was undoubtedly inspired by many
historical events. The fall of Gondolin has a very Trojan feel to it. But
mostly he was just using the tools of history to construct his own sequence
of events.
>>No, much technology had been lost. It resembles the "dark ages" in the
>>eastern Mediterranean of Circa 1200 - 800 BCE, actually.
>
>I agree that it's a good parallel, if not taken too far. Then, of course,
>much knowledge was also lost during the first centuries of the Middle Ages.
>The Middle Ages as a whole were not as ignorant and crude as they often are
>depicted as.
Knowledge was lost in western Europe, but not elsewhere. And it wasn't so
much "lost" as buried under the foot of the barbarian. Many ancient works
were preserved but not fully appreciated until the time of the Renaissance.
In Middle-earth the knowledge is truly lost, gone forever, irrecoverable
except through the long, slow process of learning it all over (this time
without the aid of the Elves).
>>Tolkien based the Orcs on the Huns, if you must make some sort of
>>identification. People have compared his mounted Haradrim to Arabic
>>cavalry, not necessarily of the Muslim period.
>
>Still, considering that Osgiliath, according to Tolkien, was situated
>roughly where Constantinople (Istanbul) is now, and that Umbar was equally
>roughly at the site of Alexandria, the thought that the battles against the
>"infidel" people of Umbar were to some extent inspired by the conflicts
>between Christians and Muslims is not entirely without merit...
There is no religious aspect to Tolkien's history. The significance of
Umbar pertains to the fact that it was where Sauron was humbled by a
Numenorean king. There is no inspiration in the Gondor/Umbar conflicts
(essentially a civil war after the Kin Strife) in the Christian/Muslim
experience. The Gondorians were not dealing with infidels but with rebels.
>...It is an interesting point that the Corsairs of Umbar had black sails
>on their ships, just like the Egyptian, Muslim Corsairs that ravaged the
>Christian Mediterranean lands and plundered their ships for much of the
>Middle Ages and well into the Modern Era.
Black sails were used in other periods. They were a symbol of despair, and
I suspect Tolkien had something of Theseus' journey in mind when he devised
black sails for the Corsairs. The effect is much the same: when the
Rohirrim and the Gondorians see the sails they think the end is come.
db
>news:%Lv83.1009$336....@news.total.net...
>
>> After reading your other responses to my posts (same
>> tone), I definitely quit this NG, so you will loose your
>> time by responding to me. Do me a favor, don't mail me
>> ever.
Is this serious? Do people really leave because of posts or emails they
receive? Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them, I just didn't realize that
people could get upset enough to leave here.
Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
<7jufj4$rp7$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>I'll never understand why so many people leave. If people stayed rather
>than allowing themselves to be driven off abusive tactics would be far
>less effective. Mind you, I well understand the need to get away from
>the nonsense at times but that shouldn't require a permanent retreat.
Agreed
>
>> BTW, all you people here should rename this NG
>> "alt.fan.martinez".
Don't know the guy well enough for that. Anyway, hate fanclubs in any form.
>
>Heh. Hardly that. Michael may sometimes dominate the newsgroup just by
>bullying his way through, but we hardly thank him for it.
>
Disagree. There's really no way to dominate here except by using a spambot
(or worse), and I know Michael posts a lot (though not so much more than
some others), but 1) Michaels' posts contain no commercial ads, and 2) they
are in general to informative or entertaining to be labeled spam. Therefore
MM is no spambot.
DON'T RELAX JUST YET! Suzieflame might still unleash some horrible
cyberweapon on (some or all of) us. Until then, I don't believe anyone here
can be bullied or dominated by anyone else.
db
--
PS: Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7jrv2n$u8_...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>have been considerable effort to control the eastern routes. But northern
>>Italy had other economic interests.
>
>
>False.
No, it's true. The Italians never attempted to gain control over the
steppes or eastern Asia. Marco Polo lacked the army he would have required
to gain control over the trade routes.
>>>...European iron and wood went to the east, via the byzantine empire...
>>
>>Not very far. Iron mines are found throughout Asia, and trees grow all
>>over the world. These items are simply too mundane to be useful for
>>long-distance trade.
>
>You can't deny that there were exchanges, even if they're not massive
>industrial exchanges as in our world.
Why would anyone in Europe, circa CE 1, send iron and wood to China? Why
would anyone in China want such items? I can see gold going east in
exchange for silk, and maybe exotic slaves and animals, but not much else.
>>No. The medieval periods of various regions do not coincide. There is
>>some overlap, but the term itself is anachronistically applied by modern
>>scholars as an arbitrary distinction. There was very little interchange
>>between the various civilizations until the development of modern rapid
>>transit technologies: steam powered ships and railroads. Once large
>>numbers of people and goods could be exchanged, the civilizations of the
>>world began to merge. Some anthropologists (perhaps most) would insist the
>>process has not been completed.
>
>
>When Europe developed railroad and steam power, It was for conquest, not
>exchange.
The first railroad was built in England. I don't recall any armies
disembarking to subdue the king's subjects.
>(Tell your Native American friends about "exchange" with the iron horse)
>The exchange was highly accelerated between western nations only.
What, you've never heard of the Orient Express?
In fact, the British empire built railroads wherever it went. The
railroads were the basis for a colonial policy that was felt even into the
late 20th century. India, for instance, still depends very much on the
railways built by the British, although in the past 10-15 years that system
has been gradually shrinking. Canada only a few years ago discontinued its
continental route.
As for native Americans and the iron horse, the biggest problem they ran
into was that it kept bringing more and more settlers out west. The
railroads of America were definitely built for commercial reasons and I
can't believe that other railways weren't built for the same goals,
whatever military uses they were occasionally put to. The British alone
may have decided to put trains into certain regions to gain control over
them.
>>>...For Europe, the superpowers of France and England had to go through the
>>>Italians and the Byzantines (despite theological arguments) to reach Asia
>>>and Africa...
>>
>>England and France did not technically reach (let alone start trying to do
>>so) Asia and Africa until after the Medieval period. The English began
>>their voyages of discovery under the Tudors.
>
>I didn't mean discovering all africa or asia.
>So, the crusades and the latin kingdoms never took place in mid-east, and
>egypt is not africa. Oh, yes... North african muslims (not arabs. berbers)
>never invaded spain, south france and italy, sicilia, etc.
There were no crusades in Middle-earth, how about that? Nor were there any
muslims in Tolkien's world, either.
>The vikings had just a little settlement. They were there because it was
>close to groenland (discovered by Erik the Red, a Norse. His son Leif
>Eriksson discovered america). Colombus was madated by the spanish crown to
>find a better way to Asia, because the portuguese already controlled the
>eastern road. And the Medieval period ends in 1492 for us (1453 for some
>historians, with the fall of Bysance -another interaction with asian
>people).
>And if you call the spanish Reconquista an internal conflict, well... read
>some REAL history books instead of saying such a nonsense.
Since when is the Reconquista NOT an internal conflict? All the history
books I've read pretty much say it was confined to Spain. And most of the
peoples who survived the wars were simply merged into the populations of
the crowns.
>>>...And what do you think about the Italian "quattrocento" (cultural golden
>>>age)? And remember that the Great Plague came from central asia to Europe
>>>and middle-east, with the merchant caravans...
>>
>>That a plague carried by rats ravaged Europe means nothing.
>
>Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. Not with respect to Middle-earth.
>>Europe suffered many plagues, and they go back to classical times
>>(undoubtedly urther than that).
>
>This one wiped out the third of european population, and almost destroyed a
>big part of classical medieval civ (social structures, economic and
>demographic development, the way people saw death..). A detail.
So? Are you going to suggest someone SENT the plague to ravage Asia and
Europe? That's interesting.
>>>...These are just examples, I could have many more. Note: I didn't
>>>invent that. 6 years at the Sorbonne (Faculty of History) helped a lot
>>>for a global analysis of human destiny through times (just some thought
>> :).
>>
>>I'm surprised.
>
>
>So, you think that Jacques LeGoff, Francois Furet or Robert Fossier theories
>and essays on pre-modern civs are bullshit?
Do I?
>These were my Professors, and they're some the most respected medievists
>in all europe and further.
And what qualifies them to declare Tolkien's stories to be set in a
Medieval world despite the author's insistence they were not?
>>>For MM: don't bite me please, I'm not arguing, just discussing.
>>
>>I really wish you people would quit posting this bullshit. *I* am not the
>>person who initiates the flame wars. I don't bite or attack anyone for
>>disagreeing with me. That is a lie promoted time and time again by the
>>people who resort to that very kind of tactic. Please do me the courtesy
>>of accepting the truth for a change. This is extremely wearying.
>
>
>OH REALLY MISTER MARTINEZ ? Now you went too far, after mocking my Profs.
Mocking your professors? In two words I've MOCKED your professors?
>You piss on the head of everybody without using "bad words", that's clever.
I see you're resorting to an unprovoked flame here.
Well, that's that.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:7jvvhv$t24$5...@news.worldonline.nl...
> Is this serious? Do people really leave because of posts
> or emails they receive? Don't get me wrong, I don't blame
> them, I just didn't realize that people could get upset
> enough to leave here.
Yes, MANY of them. The recent flame-fests are actually quite mild
compared to some of what used to go on. When every posting you make, no
matter what the topic, is followed with extremely personal flames things
get old very fast. Throw in false accusations and Denial of Service
attacks and alot of people feel it just is not worth it. I actually get
e-mail from time to time from people who still lurk in the newsgroup,
but don't "dare" to post... people who have gotten "unlisted addresses"
to escape. I've even had people ask me to post their ideas for them to
avoid reprisals, the 'Ring program code' concept I posted in late '97
was one such.
> There's really no way to dominate here except by using a
> spambot
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then as I've found that the person
who is most willing to assault the NG with an endless barrage of flames
and denunciations generally wins out. If the 'general populace' reads 40
messages from one person espousing a particular view in a seemingly
reasonable tone that is going to win out over ONE posting of the
alternate viewpoint almost every time... regardless of the relative
merits of the case - by that point the issue is so obscured that it
cannot even be identified and most people aren't really reading the
messages and checking the 'facts' presented. As Michael himself is fond
of saying, if you repeat a lie often enough and loudly enough, in a
reasonable tone, some people will start to believe it.
Öjevind Lång
>In article <OJq83.9668$Nc.1...@nntpserver.swip.net>, "Öjevind Lång"
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>>Michael Martinez hath written:
>>
>>Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War. Still, 600 years ago
we
>>had the Black Death, a devastating new strain of bubonic plague which
killed
>>off one third of all people from Japan to Ireland. In Eastern Europe, the
>>result was cultural and econmic decline. It is hard to believe that
Tolkien
>>did not have this event in mind when he described the Great Plague that
>>sapped the strength of Gondor during the reign of King Telemnar and killed
>>him as well as his cildren.
>
>make a world medieval. Nor is a plague a sign of medievality. Plagues are
>just a part of human existence. Tolkien was undoubtedly inspired by many
>historical events. The fall of Gondolin has a very Trojan feel to it. >But
mostly he was just using the tools of history to construct his own sequence
>of events.
>
"medieval" but found inspiration in all manner of things, both in mythology
and in history. That some of those inspirations were from the Middle Ages
does not make Middle-earth medieval. Neither is it meaningful to try to
depict any particular period in the history of Middle-earth as "the
Middle-earth Middle Ages". There is no fit anywhere.
<snip>
>>
>>Still, considering that Osgiliath, according to Tolkien, was situated
>>roughly where Constantinople (Istanbul) is now, and that Umbar was equally
>>roughly at the site of Alexandria, the thought that the battles against
the
>>"infidel" people of Umbar were to some extent inspired by the conflicts
>>between Christians and Muslims is not entirely without merit...
>
>There is no religious aspect to Tolkien's history. The significance of
>Umbar pertains to the fact that it was where Sauron was humbled by a
>Numenorean king. There is no inspiration in the Gondor/Umbar conflicts
>(essentially a civil war after the Kin Strife) in the Christian/Muslim
>experience. The Gondorians were not dealing with infidels but with rebels.
>
>>...It is an interesting point that the Corsairs of Umbar had black sails
>>on their ships, just like the Egyptian, Muslim Corsairs that ravaged the
>>Christian Mediterranean lands and plundered their ships for much of the
>>Middle Ages and well into the Modern Era.
>
>Black sails were used in other periods. They were a symbol of despair, and
>I suspect Tolkien had something of Theseus' journey in mind when he devised
>black sails for the Corsairs. The effect is much the same: when the
I think Tolkien may to some extent have been inspired by the fact that the
Corsairs of Umbar harried the coasts of Gondor rather in the manner of North
African corsairs harrying the coasts of the northern Mediterranean through
much of the Middle Ages - AND the New Era. Actually, an American
expeditionary force dealt with some of the Corsairs of the Barbary Shore
(the North African coast) early in the 19th Century. Thats why the U. S.
Marine Corps to this day sings about fighting "from the halls of Montezuma
to the shore of Tripoli".
In other words, they were not an exclusive Medieval phenomenon.
One medieval aspect of Gondor is that they do have a sort of feudal system
of fealty. Dol Amroth, Anfalas and the other principalities are referred to
as "fiefs", and the King of Rohan holds his entire realm in fief to the
ruler of Gondor, who is his liege lord; there is a commitment for each to
come to the aid of the other in times of need.
Still, that does not make Gondor a "medieval" country, whether European or
"general medieval" - the second category is of course, as we have already
agreed, non-existent. Many institutions in it are clearly derived from other
ages and cultures. For example, I have (for the first time in my life) tried
to imagine the knights of Dol Amroth as medieval knights. It simply isn't
possible. They didn't have any lances. They didn't have any tabards. They
were not over-burdened by too much armour in the classical medieval manner.
They did use stirrups (which were introduced in Europe in the 8th century
and made cavalry much more effective than they hade ever been before), but
that doesn't make them medieval. However, it is fascinating to consider all
the (obvious and possible) sources for Tolkien's world in history and myth.
Öjevind
o.thomson
"Öjevind Lång" wrote:
> <snip>
>One medieval aspect of Gondor is that they do have a sort of feudal
system
of fealty. Dol Amroth, Anfalas and the other principalities are referred
to
as "fiefs", and the King of Rohan holds his entire realm in fief to the
ruler of Gondor, who is his liege lord; there is a commitment for each
to
come to the aid of the other in times of need.
> <snip>
> Öjevind
Õjevind, Rohan was never a fief of Gondor. They were a free and
independent nation whose only obligation, and it was reciprocal, as you
know, was to give aid in times of dire need. Otherwise they were free
agents. Denethor was not a liege lord, only an important and vital ally.
o.thomson
Öjevind Lång
o.thomson hath written:
>
>"Öjevind Lång" wrote:
>> <snip>
<snip>
>
>Õjevind, Rohan was never a fief of Gondor. They were a free and
>independent nation whose only obligation, and it was reciprocal, as you
>know, was to give aid in times of dire need. Otherwise they were free
>agents. Denethor was not a liege lord, only an important and vital ally.
>
>o.thomson
You are right; it was careless of me to call Rohan a "fief" of Gondor.
Actually, the agreement that the Eorlingas were allowed to settle
Calenardhon in return for a mutual defence pact is a bit reminiscent of the
way certain Germanic tribes were allowed by the Romans to settle in Gaul in
return for defending the area against other invaders. A less friendly and
cosy arrangement than that between Gondor and the Rohirrim, but there are
certain resemblances.
Still, there were feudal fiefs within Gondor proper - and Ithilien was
added to them in the Fourth Age when Aragorn made Faramir Prince of
Ithilien. Still, it does not make Gondor as a whole a "medieval" country.
Just a detail.
Öjevind
Michael Martinez
<7jvvhv$t24$5...@news.worldonline.nl> "db" did proclaim:
>
>>Didoo the Purple <di...@total.net> wrote in message
>>news:%Lv83.1009$336....@news.total.net...
>>
>>> After reading your other responses to my posts (same
>>> tone), I definitely quit this NG, so you will loose your
>>> time by responding to me. Do me a favor, don't mail me
>>> ever.
>
>receive? Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them, I just didn't realize that
>people could get upset enough to leave here.
People come and go in every news group. If people like Didoo want to come,
flame, and leave, that's their prerogative. He was certainly in no position to
be complaining about the tone of my articles, given the rudeness in his own.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
Michael Martinez
>I think Tolkien may to some extent have been inspired by the fact that the
>Corsairs of Umbar harried the coasts of Gondor rather in the manner of North
>African corsairs harrying the coasts of the northern Mediterranean through
>much of the Middle Ages - AND the New Era.
Or by the fact that Cilesian Pirates harried the coasts of the
Mediterranean centuries before the end of the Empire. Tolkien wrote very
generic statements about the Corsairs. Pirates still exist in this day and
age, and they are the substance of legend throughout the millenia.
[snip]
>In other words, they were not an exclusive Medieval phenomenon.
> One medieval aspect of Gondor is that they do have a sort of feudal system
>of fealty. Dol Amroth, Anfalas and the other principalities are referred to
>as "fiefs", and the King of Rohan holds his entire realm in fief to the
>ruler of Gondor, who is his liege lord; there is a commitment for each to
>come to the aid of the other in times of need.
No, they do not have a sort of feudal system. Tolkien never stipulates or
depicts such relationships, and certainly the relationship between Rohan
and Gondor -- two sovereign nations engaged in a mutual defense compact --
cannot be described as "feudal". There is no senior partner in the
relationship.
Feudality is virtually impossible to prove in Tolkien -- all the signs of
it are missing, except for the words "fief" (which has other meanings) and
"vassals" (which may or may not imply feudalism). Tolkien himself wrote
that Dol Amroth was autonomous, having no bonds to the Stewards of Gondor.
Prince Imrahil surely came to Denethor's aid for more than one reason, but
a feudal relationship was not one of them.
> Still, that does not make Gondor a "medieval" country, whether European or
>"general medieval" - the second category is of course, as we have already
>agreed, non-existent. Many institutions in it are clearly derived from other
>ages and cultures. For example, I have (for the first time in my life) tried
>to imagine the knights of Dol Amroth as medieval knights. It simply isn't
>possible. They didn't have any lances. They didn't have any tabards. They
>were not over-burdened by too much armour in the classical medieval manner.
>They did use stirrups (which were introduced in Europe in the 8th century
>and made cavalry much more effective than they hade ever been before), but
>that doesn't make them medieval. However, it is fascinating to consider all
>the (obvious and possible) sources for Tolkien's world in history and myth.
I personally view the Knights of Dol Amroth as a blending of the mounted
warriors of several cultures, some being medieval, some being classical.
But I don't try to advocate that view because there is no more support for
it than there is for anyone else's. Tolkien simply did not make Gondor
feudal or medieval.
Michael Martinez
> Still, there were feudal fiefs within Gondor proper - and Ithilien was
>added to them in the Fourth Age when Aragorn made Faramir Prince of
>Ithilien. Still, it does not make Gondor as a whole a "medieval" country.
>Just a detail.
Tolkien's description of the government of Fourth Age Gondor does not
include feudalism.
Öjevind Lång
Michael Martinez hath written:
<snip>
>
>Feudality is virtually impossible to prove in Tolkien -- all the signs of
>it are missing, except for the words "fief" (which has other meanings) and
>"vassals" (which may or may not imply feudalism). Tolkien himself wrote
>that Dol Amroth was autonomous, having no bonds to the Stewards of Gondor.
>Prince Imrahil surely came to Denethor's aid for more than one reason, but
>a feudal relationship was not one of them.
>
I still can't help feeling that the words "fief" and "vassal" indicate some
sort of feudal system between ruler and local princes. Still, even if I am
right it would not make Gondor a feudal country in the classical sence,
since there are no serfs. Apparently, the land is tilled by independent
yeomen.
I think I have contributed all I have to give at present about the various
historical inspirations on Tolkien's depiction of Middle-earth. However, I
would appreciate if you post the passage where Tolkien says that Dol Amroth
was autonomous (or at least indicate where an find it for myself).
Öjevind
The Arcane Chas
It's a new week - so I flush my killfile, download my news and behold !!
In article <7k24cv$1j...@drn.newsguy.com>, Michael Martinez
<Mic...@xenite.org> writes
>
>People come and go in every news group. If people like Didoo want to come,
>flame, and leave, that's their prerogative. He was certainly in no position to
>be complaining about the tone of my articles, given the rudeness in his own.
>
Quite surprising how many "rude" people seem to be popping in, looking
around and loosing off a few "unprovoked" flames. Why, I wonder, are
most of those flames aimed in the same general direction ?
:-}
--
Cheers,
Chas.
http://www.lindsayc.force9.co.uk (updated 15/5/98)
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez hath written:
>>Feudality is virtually impossible to prove in Tolkien -- all the signs of
>>it are missing, except for the words "fief" (which has other meanings) and
>>"vassals" (which may or may not imply feudalism). Tolkien himself wrote
>>that Dol Amroth was autonomous, having no bonds to the Stewards of Gondor.
>>Prince Imrahil surely came to Denethor's aid for more than one reason, but
>>a feudal relationship was not one of them.
>
>I still can't help feeling that the words "fief" and "vassal" indicate some
>sort of feudal system between ruler and local princes. Still, even if I am
>right it would not make Gondor a feudal country in the classical sence,
>since there are no serfs. Apparently, the land is tilled by independent
>yeomen.
Some medievalists have argued that feudalist is not based on serfdom but
rather on contracts of mutual obligation. In some parts of Europe many of
the serfs were descended from freemen who gave up their freedom in exhange
for protection from local nobles. The nobles then encumbered obligations
to care for the serfs in hard times. However, such contracts of mutual
obligation do not exist in Gondor, regardless of whether they are tied to
the land.
Also, "fief" seems to be a late choice by Tolkien, or else we have proof
that he was not using it in the feudal sense.
"$41 The nomenclature of the Hobbits themselves and of the places
in which they lived has, nonetheless, presented some obstacles to
the satisfactory carrying out of this process of translation. Their
place-names, being (in the Shire especially) almost all originally
of C.S. form, have proved least difficult. I have converted them
into as nearly similar English terms as I could find, using the
elements found in English place-names that seemed suitable both in
sense and in period: that is in being still current (like HILL),
or slightly altered or reduced from current words (like WICH,
BOLD, BOTTLE). THE SHIRE seems to me very adequately to translate
the Hobbit SUZA-T, since this word was now only used by them with
reference to their country, though originally it had meant 'a
sphere of occupation (as of the land claimed by a family or clan),
of office, or business'. In Gondor the word SUZE was still applied
to the divisions of the realm, such as Anorien, Ithilien, Lebennin,
for which in Noldorin the word LHANN was used. Similarly FARTHING
has been used for the four divisions of the Shire, because the
Hobbit word THARNI was an old word for 'quarter' seldom used in
ordinary language, where the word for 'quarter' was THARANTIN
'fourth part'. In Gondor THARNI was used for a silver coin, the
fourth part of the CASTAR (in Noldorin the CANATH or fourth part
of the MIRIAN)."
(From THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, p. 45)
This section was revised and reduced when included in the published
Appendix on languages, but it nonetheless shows that the "fiefs" of Gondor
were called by the same name as the Hobbits' country, and that name's
meaning has no feudal connections. Tolkien apparently selected "fief" in
final publication to distinguish Gondorian usage from the Hobbits'.
> I think I have contributed all I have to give at present about the various
>historical inspirations on Tolkien's depiction of Middle-earth. However, I
>would appreciate if you post the passage where Tolkien says that Dol Amroth
>was autonomous (or at least indicate where an find it for myself).
"Mithrellas, one of the companions of Nimrodel, is lost in the
woods of Belfalas, and is harboured by Imrazor the Numenorean
[ADDED IN MARGIN: Imrazor 1950-2076], who takes her to wife
(according to the legends and traditions of Dol Amroth); though
after a few years she vanishes, whether to wander in the woods or
seek the havens. The son of the union of Mithrellas and Imrazor
received the elven-name of Galador; from him the lords of Dol
Amroth traced their descent. After the ending of the kings they
became virtually independent princes, ruling over Belfalas, but
they were at all times loyal to the Steward as representing the
ancient crown."
(From THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, p. 222)
My statement that the Lords of Dol Amroth had "no bonds to the Stewards of
Gondor" is ambiguous in this context. I meant they owed no fealty, no
feudal obligation, to the Stewards. Tolkien's statement that "they were at
all times loyal to the Steward as representing the ancient crown" implies
the Lords of Dol Amroth did not forget whatever ancient obligations they
had to the Kings of Gondor, although he is not indicating anything feudal
in the above paragraph. "Loyalty" is not equivalent with
"feudal vassalhood". The people of Minas Tirith apparently remained loyal
to the Kings as well.
Michael Martinez
<3769b3d4....@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM> sof...@pobox.com did proclaim:
>
>Could it be sheer random chance ????
Mostly just the elevated noise-to-signal ratio whenever the local rat roars,
actually.
We could have had a flame free day in alt.fan.tolkien, but the two of you
apparently wanted no part of THAT!
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
softrat
<Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It's a new week - so I flush my killfile, download my news and behold !!
>In article <7k24cv$1j...@drn.newsguy.com>, Michael Martinez
><Mic...@xenite.org> writes
>>
>>People come and go in every news group. If people like Didoo want to come,
>>flame, and leave, that's their prerogative. He was certainly in no position to
>>be complaining about the tone of my articles, given the rudeness in his own.
>
>Quite surprising how many "rude" people seem to be popping in, looking
>around and loosing off a few "unprovoked" flames. Why, I wonder, are
>most of those flames aimed in the same general direction ?
>
>:-}
Could it be sheer random chance ????
May the Farce Be With You
the softrat
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
>On the day of Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:01:56 GMT in article
><3769b3d4....@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM> sof...@pobox.com did proclaim:
>>
>
>actually.
>
>We could have had a flame free day in alt.fan.tolkien, but the two of you
>apparently wanted no part of THAT!
>
Are you suggesting that my good - humoured, gentle dig (quoted below as
you saw fit to remove it) was, in some way, a flame ?
--
db
it causes me no discomfort at all to go through the threads that seem to go
on forever, sometimes way off topic. I quickly scan the tone of the post and
then decide to read it or not.
I follow most of the flaming, mostly because I'd like to know what causes
people to get pissed off at each other (at least sufficient enough to spend
energy in a negative way in a usesless activity that will lead nowhere).
Were a flame directed at me (hasn't happened so far, hope it never will), I
intend to ignore it, at least as far as it doesn't contain anything factual
I feel I should redress.
Anyway, what it comes down to is, I think no one should let him/herself get
upset by what other people write or say about them, certainly not here where
you have an equal chance to defend yourself (if you feel you have to).
Just MHO,
db
PS: It's true (sad as that is) that when an accusation is made, it starts a
life of its own. Michael (I think) was the one who said that, and named it
as one of his reasons to respond to every post that regarded him, but was
not constructive in any way. I have experience with this in real life, and I
can say with conviction that if you're accused of something that you didn't
do, and you're asked (either formally or or by "bystanders") "How do you
plea?", it feels much better not to respond at all. It's a bad feeling if
someone accuses you, you _know_ it's bullsh*t, and you have to defend
yourself. Someone else _forces_ to take a stand. I decided then not to, and
felt then and since that I was the one on high ground.
I think it would work here too.
db
--
PS: Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
<7k0a61$klt$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Michael Martinez
>It's a new week - so I flush my killfile, download my news and behold !!
>In article <7k24cv$1j...@drn.newsguy.com>, Michael Martinez
><Mic...@xenite.org> writes
>>
>>People come and go in every news group. If people like Didoo want to come,
>>flame, and leave, that's their prerogative. He was certainly in no position
> to
>>be complaining about the tone of my articles, given the rudeness in his own.
>>
>
>Quite surprising how many "rude" people seem to be popping in, looking
>around and loosing off a few "unprovoked" flames. Why, I wonder, are
>most of those flames aimed in the same general direction ?
I wouldn't know, since I don't see that most of the flames are aimed in the
same general direction. All of YOUR flames are, and perhaps you've blinded
yourself into thinking everyone else's are, too, aimed in one direction.
Michael Martinez
>Anyway, what it comes down to is, I think no one should let him/herself get
>upset by what other people write or say about them, certainly not here where
>you have an equal chance to defend yourself (if you feel you have to).
May you never have to deal with people posting nice long articles in
response to your own and then begging you not to attack them in response,
even though you've never done anything like that.
Should you ever have the experience, you'll come closer to understanding
WHY it seems to compelling to respond to the lies that people post in their
attempts to persuade others to treat one differently.
Conrad is one of the worst of the liars, and apparently he hasn't stopped.
>PS: It's true (sad as that is) that when an accusation is made, it starts a
>life of its own. Michael (I think) was the one who said that, and named it
>as one of his reasons to respond to every post that regarded him, but was
>not constructive in any way. I have experience with this in real life, and I
>can say with conviction that if you're accused of something that you didn't
>do, and you're asked (either formally or or by "bystanders") "How do you
>plea?", it feels much better not to respond at all. It's a bad feeling if
>someone accuses you, you _know_ it's bullsh*t, and you have to defend
>yourself. Someone else _forces_ to take a stand. I decided then not to, and
>felt then and since that I was the one on high ground.
>I think it would work here too.
Trust me, it doesn't.
Michael Martinez
>In article <7k4k6u$o...@drn.newsguy.com>, but only after serious
>contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
>keyboard and produced the following;
>>On the day of Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:01:56 GMT in article
>><3769b3d4....@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM> sof...@pobox.com did proclaim:
>>>
>>>Could it be sheer random chance ????
>>
>>Mostly just the elevated noise-to-signal ratio whenever the local rat roars,
>>actually.
>>
>>We could have had a flame free day in alt.fan.tolkien, but the two of you
>>apparently wanted no part of THAT!
>>
>
>Are you suggesting that my good - humoured, gentle dig (quoted below as
>you saw fit to remove it) was, in some way, a flame ?
It looked like that to me. Apparently you have a problem with people
taking offense at your insults? I wonder why.
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
><Ch...@lindsayc.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Are you suggesting that my good - humoured, gentle dig (quoted below as
>>you saw fit to remove it) was, in some way, a flame ?
>
>It looked like that to me. Apparently you have a problem with people
>taking offense at your insults? I wonder why.
>
>
On the contrary, I don't care whether or not I upset you. I'm simply
curious about your attitude.
RLV
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7k6pjv$3uo...@Org.xenite.org>...
>In article <1$YAIFAJy...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk>, The Arcane Chas
<Ch...@lindsayc.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>>contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
>>keyboard and produced the following;
>>><3769b3d4....@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM> sof...@pobox.com did proclaim:
<snip>
>>Are you suggesting that my good - humoured, gentle dig (quoted below as
>>you saw fit to remove it) was, in some way, a flame ?
>
>It looked like that to me. Apparently you have a problem with people
>taking offense at your insults? I wonder why.
That's the root of it. You can call people "uninformed", their opinions
"absurd, stupid and disinformed", you can say that all they say here is but
rubbish, and that's not an insult. Then, a soft joke like that, and you
consider that a flame and an insult.
Then, after he says that he didn't see his joke as an insult, you, instead
of saying that you had overreacted, blame him for not recognizing his
insults. Neat. And typical of you.
Again, double standards. That's a normal self-delusion, but you carry it to
great extremes.
R.L.V.
---#----
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7k6pjv$3uo...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>It looked like that to me. Apparently you have a problem with people
>>taking offense at your insults? I wonder why.
>
>
>That's the root of it. You can call people "uninformed", their opinions
>"absurd, stupid and disinformed", you can say that all they say here is but
>rubbish, and that's not an insult.
No, it's quite clearly insulting language. But note that I don't resort to
it until I've been insulted first. Look at how I didn't argue with you
until you started an unprovoked flame war with me.
Michael Martinez
>In article <7k6pjv$3uo...@Org.xenite.org>, but only after serious
>contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
>keyboard and produced the following;
>><Ch...@lindsayc.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that my good - humoured, gentle dig (quoted below as
>>>you saw fit to remove it) was, in some way, a flame ?
>>
>>taking offense at your insults? I wonder why.
>
>curious about your attitude.
There's a non sequitur if ever I've read one.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:7k6poi$3uo...@Org.xenite.org...
> Conrad is one of the worst of the liars, and apparently
> he hasn't stopped.
Oh, is it my turn again?
Let's see, I should still remember how this goes... oh yes;
Verily, indeed it is all true. Believe what the wise
Martinez hath said. I am evil incarnate. Liar, flamer,
hypocrite, seditious troublemaker and idiot. All knowest
that it is so. I delight only in forcing Michael to defend
himself from my pernicious and unprovoked flames. His
selflessly tireless efforts to promote harmonious and
erudite discussion fill me with unreasoning fury and I must
do all in my power to disrupt the newsgroup with senseless
bickering. I hath not the wit to understand the writings
of Tolkien and must thus rely upon groundless assumptions
and pathetic flames. The good Michael Martinez hath never
started a flame war nor claimed his interpretations as fact
nor acted in the least way condescending to any visitor of
these newsgroups. The Ring spoke on Mount Doom and Elves
and Dwarves live together in eternal harmony.
That about cover it?
Well then, now that that's over with, back to talking about
those stories written by some guy named John.
db
--
PS: Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
RLV wrote in message <37675...@sahara.cablecat.com>...
>That's the root of it. You can call people "uninformed"
Not rude
>their opinions "absurd, stupid"
Rude
>and "disinformed"
Not rude
>you can say that all they say here is but rubbish
Rude
>and that's not an insult. Then, a soft joke like that, and you
>consider that a flame and an insult.
>
>Then, after he says that he didn't see his joke as an insult, you, instead
>of saying that you had overreacted, blame him for not recognizing his
>insults. Neat. And typical of you.
>
>Again, double standards. That's a normal self-delusion, but you carry it to
>great extremes.
>
>
> R.L.V.
> ---#----
I'm sorry I somehow missed the original post. Have no way to judge now.
db
db
--
PS: Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7k6poi$3uo...@Org.xenite.org>...
>
>May you never have to deal with people posting nice long articles in
>response to your own and then begging you not to attack them in response,
>even though you've never done anything like that.
>
>Should you ever have the experience, you'll come closer to understanding
>WHY it seems to compelling to respond to the lies that people post in their
>attempts to persuade others to treat one differently.
>
>Conrad is one of the worst of the liars, and apparently he hasn't stopped.
>
Michael, wether you're right about Conrad or not, to state your complaints
about him here is counterproductive.
To respond to a post when you feel you are compelled to is one thing, but
don't you think that mentioning a person that was until this point (in this
post) unconnected will evoke some reaction that is equally
counterproductive?
>>PS: It's true (sad as that is) that when an accusation is made, it starts
a
>>life of its own. Michael (I think) was the one who said that, and named it
>>as one of his reasons to respond to every post that regarded him, but was
>>not constructive in any way. I have experience with this in real life, and
I
>>can say with conviction that if you're accused of something that you
didn't
>>do, and you're asked (either formally or or by "bystanders") "How do you
>>plea?", it feels much better not to respond at all. It's a bad feeling if
>>someone accuses you, you _know_ it's bullsh*t, and you have to defend
>>yourself. Someone else _forces_ to take a stand. I decided then not to,
and
>>felt then and since that I was the one on high ground.
>>I think it would work here too.
>
>Trust me, it doesn't.
>
You may be right. But I do feel you (and some others here as well) should
give it some serious thought. The idea can be tried and tested, and _then_
perhaps judged unsound.
db
Michael Martinez
>>Then, after he says that he didn't see his joke as an insult, you, instead
>>of saying that you had overreacted, blame him for not recognizing his
>>insults. Neat. And typical of you.
>>
>>Again, double standards. That's a normal self-delusion, but you carry it to
>>great extremes.
>I'm sorry I somehow missed the original post. Have no way to judge now.
There was no original post. "RLV" was attacking a straw man.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7k6poi$3uo...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>
>>May you never have to deal with people posting nice long articles in
>>response to your own and then begging you not to attack them in response,
>>even though you've never done anything like that.
>>
>>Should you ever have the experience, you'll come closer to understanding
>>WHY it seems to compelling to respond to the lies that people post in their
>>attempts to persuade others to treat one differently.
>>
>>Conrad is one of the worst of the liars, and apparently he hasn't stopped.
>>
>
>
>Michael, wether you're right about Conrad or not, to state your complaints
>about him here is counterproductive.
Counterproductive to what?
>To respond to a post when you feel you are compelled to is one thing, but
>don't you think that mentioning a person that was until this point (in this
>post) unconnected will evoke some reaction that is equally
>counterproductive?
Unconnected? Unconnected in what way? I was responding to your followup
to Conrad. I can't help but see his words when I followup to other people.
He's gone out of his way to provoke me on numerous occasions. So I'm not
concerned about whether what I say in return (which is only truthful
anyway) provokes him into further action.
>>>PS: It's true (sad as that is) that when an accusation is made, it starts
>>>a life of its own. Michael (I think) was the one who said that, and named it
>>>as one of his reasons to respond to every post that regarded him, but was
>>>not constructive in any way. I have experience with this in real life, and
>>>I can say with conviction that if you're accused of something that you
>>>didn't do, and you're asked (either formally or or by "bystanders") "How
>>>do you plea?", it feels much better not to respond at all. It's a bad
>>>feeling if someone accuses you, you _know_ it's bullsh*t, and you have
>>>to defend yourself. Someone else _forces_ to take a stand. I decided
>>>then not to, and felt then and since that I was the one on high ground.
>>>I think it would work here too.
>>
>>Trust me, it doesn't.
>
>
>You may be right. But I do feel you (and some others here as well) should
>give it some serious thought. The idea can be tried and tested, and _then_
>perhaps judged unsound.
It's already been tried. More than once. The hits just keep coming
despite the silence of the victims, and the more often these allegations
are repeated unchallenged, the more credible they seem to people just
entering the news groups.
People like Conrad, who stoop to character assassination just to make
themselves look good at someone else's expense, will do anything they are
permitted to get away with. He and a few others have succeeded in
propagating the myth of "Michael attacks whomever disagrees with him"
(when, in fact, it is THEY who engage in such behavior). I will not sit
idly by and let their other lies go unchallenged lest other myths be
propagated.
Undoubtedly people like Dunkerson and Bader persist in their harassment and
lies BECAUSE they know they have deceived at least a few people regarding
me.
RLV
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7kb9h2$u8_...@Org.xenite.org>...
>In article <7kb3bn$7o$5...@news.worldonline.nl>, "db"
<gamedog...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>>>Then, after he says that he didn't see his joke as an insult, you,
instead
>>>of saying that you had overreacted, blame him for not recognizing his
>>>insults. Neat. And typical of you.
>>>
>>>Again, double standards. That's a normal self-delusion, but you carry it
to
>>>great extremes.
>>> ---#----
>>I'm sorry I somehow missed the original post. Have no way to judge now.
>
>There was no original post. "RLV" was attacking a straw man.
I repeat:
FYI:
After Didoo the Purple announced that he was leaving AFT, fed up with MM and
this NG becoming AFM.
(I'm not saying if Didoo was right or not; I'm just summarizing what he
said. His post was long.)
The Archane Chas posted:
">People come and go in every news group. If people like Didoo want to
come,
>flame, and leave, that's their prerogative. He was certainly in no
position to
>be complaining about the tone of my articles, given the rudeness in his
own.
>
Quite surprising how many "rude" people seem to be popping in, looking
around and loosing off a few "unprovoked" flames. Why, I wonder, are
most of those flames aimed in the same general direction ?
:-}
"
end of quote.
R.L.V.
---#----
RLV
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7k8rtv$2h8...@Org.xenite.org>...>>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7k6pjv$3uo...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>>It looked like that to me. Apparently you have a problem with people
>>>taking offense at your insults? I wonder why.
>>
>>
but
>>rubbish, and that's not an insult.
>
>No, it's quite clearly insulting language. But note that I don't resort to
>it until I've been insulted first. Look at how I didn't argue with you
>until you started an unprovoked flame war with me.
a)- I didn't argue with you until you started spreading flame wars to new
threads.
b)- I never flamed you.
c)- I won't agree or disagree with your affirmation that "I don't resort to
it until I've been insulted first" right now.
What happened to the Tom Bombadil? thread? I had put there a peace offer. I
was waiting to reply to you until you had replied to my offer. Then, I see
it has disappeared.
R.L.V.
---#----
Conrad Dunkerson
news:7kb3bm$7o$4...@news.worldonline.nl...
> Michael, wether you're right about Conrad or not...
Now >THIS< is insulting. I'm sure you do not intend it in such a way,
but I always have to cringe when people say things like 'Michael may be
in alot of flame wars but he does not start them' or 'Michael can be
trying but he is usually right / does not lie' or something like the
above.
Michael can (and does) insult me all he wants. I have no great respect
for his opinion. However, when he goes off with one of his;
"Dunkerson's opinions have no value to me because he's an idiot. Nothing
more. The guy couldn't work his way through a Tolkien story if his life
depended on it" and people are almost simultaneously saying that Michael
does not lie or flame people without justification... that bothers me.
Do you INTEND to indicate that Michael's claims that I am an; "idiot" /
"liar" / "flamer" who 'knows nothing of Tolkien' and 'constantly tries
to stir up trouble' may be correct? Or were you simply trying to be
diplomatic? If the latter, I'm afraid you've failed - at least in
regards to myself. I don't care about Michael's opinion, but yours and
those of other members of the newsgroup DO matter to me. I can
understand if you want to discuss things in a reasonable tone with
Michael, but can't you avoid seeming to lend credence to some of his
more negative attitudes? Unless you really mean to say that these
claims he makes seem true or possibly so?
db
--
PS: Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying.
Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
<7kc20b$3qk$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>db <gamedog...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
>news:7kb3bm$7o$4...@news.worldonline.nl...
>
>> Michael, wether you're right about Conrad or not...
>
>Now >THIS< is insulting. I'm sure you do not intend it in such a way,
>but I always have to cringe when people say things like 'Michael may be
>in alot of flame wars but he does not start them' or 'Michael can be
>trying but he is usually right / does not lie' or something like the
>above.
I can see why you would take this as an insult. It is certainly not intended
as such. The wording was chosen to be diplomatic (as you offer as a reason
below), moreover because I feel that, to _my_ point, it is indeed
irrelevant. I don't think you are the flamer Michael says you are, but even
if you were far worse than he says, my point was, it helps in no way
whatsoever to state those opinions where there is no reason to.
Besides, I'm not in the 'Michael may be in alot of flame wars but he does
not start them' or 'Michael can be trying but he is usually right / does not
lie' camp. I prefer not be in any camp (except the
"get-that-movie-on-the-road-as quickly-and-well-done-as-possible-show camp)
I never made any claims as to who starts flamewars, I wouldn't dare (and
Ojevind claimed I was no coward...). I do feel Michael is right a lot of the
time, _on Tolkien matters_. I never expressed _my_ opinions on who was right
in which conflict.
I still feel that most of the flamewars can be traced back to frictions
originating from personality clashes and interpretative mistakes. I don't
think you, Michael or anyone else here who posts in a serious fashion
intends to start flaming. In fact I believe it to be a contradiction in
terms (Tolkien fan - flamewar starter). It's been said before, and not only
by me. Michael's manner can certainly be abrasive, but not everyone takes
offence at the way he adresses people. Meaning it's as much dependant on
whose ears his words fall, as on the words themselves.
>
>Michael can (and does) insult me all he wants. I have no great respect
>for his opinion. However, when he goes off with one of his;
>"Dunkerson's opinions have no value to me because he's an idiot. Nothing
>more. The guy couldn't work his way through a Tolkien story if his life
>depended on it" and people are almost simultaneously saying that Michael
>does not lie or flame people without justification... that bothers me.
It would bother me too. I understand Michael feels completely justified when
he makes the claims he does. I've posted more than once how I would handle
the situation he feels he's in. He's decided long ago to take a totally
opposite course. I've given him (and the NG) my humble opinion that
countering the way he feels compelled to only makes matters worse (again,
without it being really relevant to who started it in the first place).
Michael, like anyone else, is entitled to (and even if he wasn't, couldn't
be stopped from) his chosen form of action.
>
>Do you INTEND to indicate that Michael's claims that I am an; "idiot" /
>"liar" / "flamer" who 'knows nothing of Tolkien' and 'constantly tries
>to stir up trouble' may be correct? Or were you simply trying to be
>diplomatic? If the latter, I'm afraid you've failed - at least in
>regards to myself.
I answered this, will do so again: Personally, I do _not_ think you are any
of the 3 above. I have not been here that long, but in the brief period
since I have, I've seen or read nothing that would give me the impression of
you that Michael states he has. I cannot understand why Michael would be so
vehement about you, or indeed Joe Bader, unless it's part of a history I'm
unaware of. In that case I have no way of knowing or judging (the latter I
am sorely inclined to do.)
> I don't care about Michael's opinion
Which (where it concerns Tolkien) is a shame, but I fully understand. I'm
not at all sure my position would be any different if I were you.
>but yours and
>those of other members of the newsgroup DO matter to me.
Thank you. That flatters me. It will make me weigh my words (even) more
carefully.
>I can
>understand if you want to discuss things in a reasonable tone with
>Michael, but can't you avoid seeming to lend credence to some of his
>more negative attitudes? Unless you really mean to say that these
>claims he makes seem true or possibly so?
>
I didn't intend to (seem to) lend credence to any of his negative attitudes.
Wether I think he's right or wrong (and I consciously form no opinion until
I _know_ all the facts), I will express myself either on Tolkien lore (of
which I have much more to learn than to share) or on what I feel is
constructive behaviour in the NG. The latter is what I was trying to do, and
I apologize if I appeared to take sides in a flamewar.
I hope I cleared up my position.
db
db
--
PS: Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7kb9el$u8_...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>>Conrad is one of the worst of the liars, and apparently he hasn't
stopped.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Michael, wether you're right about Conrad or not, to state your complaints
>>about him here is counterproductive.
>
>Counterproductive to what?
Counterproductive to creating an atmospere of good will and positive debate,
or barring that, to limiting the negative remarks about each other to the
absolute minimum.
>
>>To respond to a post when you feel you are compelled to is one thing, but
>>don't you think that mentioning a person that was until this point (in
this
>>post) unconnected will evoke some reaction that is equally
>>counterproductive?
>
>Unconnected? Unconnected in what way? I was responding to your followup
>to Conrad. I can't help but see his words when I followup to other people.
Uhm... As far as I can recall I only responded to your followup where you
made the remark that seemed so out of context to me.
propagated.
>
>Undoubtedly people like Dunkerson and Bader persist in their harassment and
>lies BECAUSE they know they have deceived at least a few people regarding
>me.
But including their names in an (as far as I can tell) unrelated post will
not help. Responding when you feel you are attacked is one thing, but I
couldn't find a cause for it here. Please repost the part you took offense
at, and I'll rethink my words, retract them if need be.
db
Michael Martinez
In article <7kd4g8$gk$1...@weber.a2000.nl>, "db"
<gamedog...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
><7kc20b$3qk$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>db <gamedog...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
>>news:7kb3bm$7o$4...@news.worldonline.nl...
>>
>>> Michael, wether you're right about Conrad or not...
>>
>>Now >THIS< is insulting. I'm sure you do not intend it in such a way,
>>but I always have to cringe when people say things like 'Michael may be
>>in alot of flame wars but he does not start them'
THIS is a flame. Dunkerson and others have accused me of initiating flame
wars I did not start.
>I don't think you are the flamer Michael says you are,
I do not lie.
>>Do you INTEND to indicate that Michael's claims that I am an; "idiot" /
>>"liar" / "flamer" who 'knows nothing of Tolkien' and 'constantly tries
>>to stir up trouble' may be correct? Or were you simply trying to be
>>diplomatic? If the latter, I'm afraid you've failed - at least in
>>regards to myself.
>
>I answered this, will do so again: Personally, I do _not_ think you are any
>of the 3 above. I have not been here that long, but in the brief period
>since I have, I've seen or read nothing that would give me the impression of
>you that Michael states he has. I cannot understand why Michael would be so
>vehement about you, or indeed Joe Bader, unless it's part of a history I'm
>unaware of. In that case I have no way of knowing or judging (the latter I
>am sorely inclined to do.)
A brief search of Deja.Com could show you the problems Dunkerson and Bader
have caused in this news group. As for his limited understanding of
Tolkien, that is demonstrable only by sifting through his articles and
comparing what he says to what the books say. I have no further wish to do
that, and in any event he could come back with "That's just your
interpretation" or "not in my opinion", blah, blah, blah.
It was inevitable, of course, that you would be flamed by Conrad for saying
something diplomatic. His intention is to entice as many people as
possible into taking sides, preferably his, in a flame war long of his own
making.
No one forced him to involve himself in the flaming -- he did it of his own
volition.
Michael Martinez
as the injured party in these lists of grievances and recriminations and
it's time to set the record straight (once again).
In article <7kdq0a$2or$4...@news.worldonline.nl>, "db"
<gamedog...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7kb9el$u8_...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>>>Conrad is one of the worst of the liars, and apparently he hasn't
>>>>stopped.
>>>
>>>Michael, wether you're right about Conrad or not, to state your
>>>complaints about him here is counterproductive.
>>
>>Counterproductive to what?
>
>Counterproductive to creating an atmospere of good will and positive debate,
>or barring that, to limiting the negative remarks about each other to the
>absolute minimum.
I have no interest in "creating an atmosphere of good will and positive
debate" with people who, when they cannot sway me to their views, resort to
flaming and character assassination. The Tolkien groups were civil before
they chose to bring them down to the muck and mire of personal
vilification. They've made their bed, let them sleep in it. There was no
need for me to "create an atmosphere of good will and positive debate"
before the flamers started with their nonsense, and if they would just stop
NOW there would be no need, and even if I tried (yet again) it would do no
good.
As you've seen from Dunkerson's flame to you, he doesn't take
responsibility for what he's done.
>>>To respond to a post when you feel you are compelled to is one thing, but
>>>don't you think that mentioning a person that was until this point (in
>>>this post) unconnected will evoke some reaction that is equally
>>>counterproductive?
>>
>>Unconnected? Unconnected in what way? I was responding to your followup
>>to Conrad. I can't help but see his words when I followup to other people.
>
>Uhm... As far as I can recall I only responded to your followup where you
>made the remark that seemed so out of context to me.
Sorry, let me refresh your memory. The following is taken from Deja.Com,
which has a nice "View Thread" feature that shows you who responded to whom
in a very well-done tree. I've edited out most of the content to save on
bandwidth:
>From: "db" <gamedog...@worldonline.nl>
>Subject: Re: ME global history : my theory
>Date: 15 Jun 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>Message-ID: <7k5edo$ipc$4...@news.worldonline.nl>
>References: <7jhqv9$ql1$1...@news.casema.net> <7jiqot$jcj$1...@news.worldonline.nl> <7jk2gs$q3$1...@news.casema.net> <7jk6sl$2vg...@Org.xenite.org> <iDz73.372$336....@news.total.net> <7jnhdu$2r...@drn.newsguy.com> <7joi79$lr8$1...@news.casema.net> <qBW73.689$336....@news.total.net> <7jpgf0$28k...@Org.xenite.org> <ale83.880$336....@news.total.net> <7jrv2n$u8_...@Org.xenite.org> <%Lv83.1009$336....@news.total.net> <7jufj4$rp7$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <7jvvhv$t24$5...@news.worldonline.nl> <7k0a61$klt$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Conrad I understand well what you mean. But the way I browse through the NG,
>it causes me no discomfort at all to go through the threads that seem to go
>on forever, sometimes way off topic. I quickly scan the tone of the post and
>then decide to read it or not.
[snippage]
>Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
><7k0a61$klt$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>Yes, MANY of them. The recent flame-fests are actually quite mild
>>compared to some of what used to go on. When every posting you make, no
>>matter what the topic, is followed with extremely personal flames things
>>get old very fast.
[snip]
To which I responded:
>From: Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez)
>Subject: Re: ME global history : my theory
>Date: 16 Jun 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>Message-ID: <7k6poi$3uo...@Org.xenite.org>
>References: <7jhqv9$ql1$1...@news.casema.net> <7jiqot$jcj$1...@news.worldonline.nl> <7jk2gs$q3$1...@news.casema.net> <7jk6sl$2vg...@Org.xenite.org> <iDz73.372$336....@news.total.net> <7jnhdu$2r...@drn.newsguy.com> <7joi79$lr8$1...@news.casema.net> <qBW73.689$336....@news.total.net> <7jpgf0$28k...@Org.xenite.org> <ale83.880$336....@news.total.net> <7jrv2n$u8_...@Org.xenite.org> <%Lv83.1009$336....@news.total.net> <7jufj4$rp7$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <7jvvhv$t24$5...@news.worldonline.nl> <7k0a61$klt$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <7k5edo$ipc$4...@news.worldonline.nl>
>In article <7k5edo$ipc$4...@news.worldonline.nl>, "db" <gamedog...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>>Anyway, what it comes down to is, I think no one should let him/herself get
>>upset by what other people write or say about them, certainly not here where
>>you have an equal chance to defend yourself (if you feel you have to).
>
>May you never have to deal with people posting nice long articles in
>response to your own and then begging you not to attack them in response,
>even though you've never done anything like that.
>
>Should you ever have the experience, you'll come closer to understanding
>WHY it seems to compelling to respond to the lies that people post in their
>attempts to persuade others to treat one differently.
>
>Conrad is one of the worst of the liars, and apparently he hasn't stopped.
[snip]
And then you came back with your counterproductivity question. So indeed
there was a connection. Conrad's petulant blather about "protecting"
people is pure bullshit. The only people who might need protecting would
be the original flamers whose side he took in the first place. Had he
stayed out of the flame wars he at least would not have been flamed by me.
Had he ever chosen to be a reasonable (much less HONEST) person my opinion
of him would not have dropped so quickly.
People like him stoop to character assassination because they advocate
positions which are untenable, and by attacking the other person they hope
to draw attention away from the flaws in their own arguments.
A search of Deja.Com will show you that Conrad has never admitted to being
wrong on any point (search for the phrases "I was wrong", "I am wrong", "I
am incorrect", "I was incorrect", "thank you for that correction", etc.).
You'll find where he says such things while flaming people, but he never
concedes a point in any Tolkien discussion.
Is that a sin? No. No one thinks they are wrong when they are argue a
point. But Dunkerson has made this out to be a bad thing with respect to
me. He holds himself up as the paragon of politeness in the news group.
Do you know he has almost thanked anyone in any Tolkien discussion. You
can't find but seven hits on "Thanks" for him and not all of those are
articles where he thanked anyone (and Deja.Com goes all the back to the
beginning of 1995). By contrast you'll find I say "thanks" and "thank you"
far more often than that, but according to Mr. Dunkerson, I'm the bully
around here. I'm never polite to anyone by his standards.
And if we examine the record on bullying, what you'll find is that Conrad
likes to selectively quote articles so as to misrepresent what has been
said. On December 7, 1997 (only a couple of months after the Tolkien
groups were inundated with unprovoked flammage by a few people) Dunkerson
posted the following article to rec.arts.books.tolkien:
From: Conrad Dunkerson <con...@planet.net>
Subject: Rebuttal and Insult
Date: 07 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <348B028E...@planet.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
No attributions, just examples in hopes of preventing further
unpleasantness;
"There is a difference between rebutting and being insulting."
I could not agree more. Consider;
Rebutting;
"I certainly agree that you have the right to disagree with me, but I
would prefer that you continue your usual excellent work and back up
your assertions with textual evidence. I have explained why I find
what you have offered so far lacking. Rebut me or provide more
evidence to support the premise that... <topic snipped>"
Insulting;
"By implying I've failed to do this while you have yourself offered
nothing credible reveals how narrow-minded you've chosen to be."
"It's time you started putting out some citations. If you can't then
you have nothing to contribute to the discussion but your opinion, and
I assure you that no matter how often you repeat something
unsupportable, I will not choose to accept it as correct, the truth,
right, confirmed, proven, or whatever you wish to say."
The two passages are requesting the same thing, further evidence of the
opposite view on the topic, but the tone is very different. Now, none
of us can be as faltlessly polite as the first writer at all times
(going so far as to praise the person we are disagreeing with), but we
should make the effort to go back and make certain that our posts
contain no outright insults or flames.
Completely eliminating frustration and annoyance in tone are likely
beyond the scope of human nature (I am often guilty of both myself),
but we SHOULD be able to discuss things with no more than occaisional
annoyance at someone's inability to see what (to us) seems obvious...
and without personal insults and attacks.
Obviously Mr. Dunkerson doesn't practice what he preaches. With respect to
the first set of citations, they come from a Balrog discussion between me
and W. Sheldon Simms III held that same month: Mr. Simms article was
posted in response to mine:
From: she...@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms)
Subject: Re: Balrogs (was Re: Bombadil)
Date: 06 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
<1F60EFB92489B899.7A8288BA...@library-proxy.airnews.
net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
In article <66cc4f$d...@drn.zippo.com>, Michael Martinez
<Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> In article
>
<164F2057ADC57643.A027D32F8D89CD28.99EE44DEC2AF90DC@library-proxy.
airnews.net>,
> she...@atlcom.net says...
> >
> >In article <66b80s$f...@drn.zippo.com>, Michael Martinez
> ><Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> >
> >> In MORGOTH'S RING
> >> there is an earlier passage for the account of the Balrogs coming to
> >> Morgoth's aid which may reveal something of Tolkien's thought of
> >> their form and nature after the publication of THE LORD OF THE
> >> RINGS:
> >>
> >> the Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their lord.
> >> Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over
> >> Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
> >> (MORGOTH'S RING, pp. 296-7)
> >
> >As in my other post, I see no evidence in this passage for the premise
> >that balrogs had wings, or could literally fly.
>
> Yeah, that "winged speed" phrase would require a great deal of
> interpretation in order for it to imply anyone was flying, especially
> with the contradiction of the "swiftly they arose" and "over Hithlum"
> phrases implying ground movement.
The idiom is common, if somewhat archiac, and does not imply aerial
flight. The phrase "winged speed" in the above is, it seems to me, the
strongest textual evidence you have offered. However, in the context of
the idiom it seems to me to imply only that they moved very quickly, not
that they actually flew.
> Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but if you could only see your statement the
> way I see it you might understand my exasperation.
>
> I think you've married yourself to an idea (that Tolkien was using KJV
> idiom, even though he was a devout Roman Catholic) and will argue this
> point ad infinitum.
The idiom is not limited to the KJV. I used the KJV only as a common
example of the type of language that Tolkien was seeking to emulate.
> Can we agree to disagree, or shall I add you to the list of RABT
> Rogues?
I don't see what grounds I have for being considered a "rogue" for the
crime of continuing to rebut your posts. I certainly agree that you
have the right to disagree with me, but I would prefer that you
continue your usual excellent work and back up your assertions with
textual evidence. I have explained why I find what you have offered
so far lacking. Rebut me or provide more evidence to support the premise
that balrogs have wings and can fly.
If you can provide no further evidence, cannot or do not wish to attempt
to dismiss my objections to the passages you have already offered, and
wish to maintain that balrogs had wings and could fly, then we have no
choice but to agree to disagree - and I am willing to do so.
> this discussion is verging on another massive flame war, and neither of
> us has anything to gain by that.
There is no reason the discussion cannot continue without a flame war.
I have no desire to flame you and I hope I have satisfactorily
explained my statement about "willful misconstrual" in my last post.
Just in case it is not clear to some readers, I specifically deny
that you have been less than honest in any of your posts. But I do
think that you are allowing a preconceived notion to unduly influence
your reading of the text.
I hope that you continue a rational argument based on what evidence is
available concerning Tolkien's conception of the nature and appearance
of a balrog. You have convinced me in the past of the wrongness of some
of my own beliefs and opinions concerning Tolkien's works (notably on
the question of who held the nine).
Note that Mr. Simms offered no complaints about my tone and complimented my
rationality. His assessment of my "rudeness factor" difference from Mr.
Dunkerson's. You can see from his own article that I did indeed offer
citations (as I usually do).
Now let's see how I responded, and you'll get an idea of where Conrad drew
his inspiration from:
From: Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>
Subject: Re: Balrogs (was Re: Bombadil)
Date: 06 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
In article
<1F60EFB92489B899.7A8288BAC70A4D26.6560F4535FF3057A@library-proxy.
airnews.net>, she...@atlcom.net says...
>
>In article <66cc4f$d...@drn.zippo.com>, Michael Martinez
><Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>> Can we agree to disagree, or shall I add you to the list of RABT
>> Rogues?
>
>I don't see what grounds I have for being considered a "rogue" for the
>crime of continuing to rebut your posts. I certainly agree that you
>have the right to disagree with me, but I would prefer that you
>continue your usual excellent work and back up your assertions with
>textual evidence. I have explained why I find what you have offered
>so far lacking. Rebut me or provide more evidence to support the premise
>that balrogs have wings and can fly.
There is a difference between rebutting and being insulting. Given that
you've offered no evidence to support your views, whereas I've shown
repeatedly that Tolkien was consistent about the Maiar's powers to change
shape and assume forms of their desire, and that neither you nor anyone
else has been able to cite one passage indicating the Balrogs were even
earthbound in their winged (or pseudo-winged forms), you're in no
position to be demanding that anyone back up their assertions.
By implying I've failed to do this while you have yourself offered
nothing credible reveals how narrow-minded you've chosen to be.
I never said I was trying to convince anyone the Balrogs flew by virtue
of their wings. That you feel you're arguing with me on this point shows
you've missed a great deal of this thread, and one can only wonder what
it is you hope to accomplish through these jibes and misdirections.
It's time you started putting out some citations. If you can't then you
have nothing to contribute to the discussion but your opinion, and I
assure you that no matter how often you repeat something unsupportable, I
will not choose to accept it as correct, the truth, right, confirmed,
proven, or whatever you wish to say.
Yes, I felt that citing my citations and then insisting "you continue your
usual excellent work and back up your assertions with textual evidence" was
rather rude of Mr. Simms. No denying that. He never did, btw, offer any
textual evidence of his own.
However, always quick to enter the fray with his rapier wit, Conrad then
followed up to me with his "Rebuttal and Insult" article.
In that same thread Dunkerso had this polite commentary to offer on the
subject:
From: Conrad Dunkerson <con...@planet.net>
Subject: Re: Balrogs (was Re: Bombadil)
Date: 06 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Michael Martinez wrote:
> You can find an example to support almost any point in Tolkien.
> Perhaps what frustrates people the most about me is that I am seldom
> without the means to find those examples. :)
Well, speaking only for myself it is your tendency to abusively state as
inescapable fact what is actually only a possible interpretation. For
instance with the Balrogs' ability to shapechange; while there are no
passages stating they lost it there are also none stating they retained
or ever used it. They were Ainur and thus once had it, but other Ainur
also had and lost it... specifically several of those Ainur most like
the Balrogs. The matter is uncertain. If you could discuss your view
politely as an opinion (as others do) I would have no problem with it.
"your tendency to abusively state as inescapable fact what is actually only
a possible interpretation". But for the very abuse dripping from this
phrase I would have said Mr. Dunkerson was suggesting the impossible, but
clearly it is possible to "abusively state as inescapable fact what is
actually only a possible interpretation".
You have now seen his only contributions to that thread, neither of them
actually engaging in actual discussion of the topic. I think it's ironic
that in the previous month, while posting another of his defensive attacks
against me, he concluded with:
I have never flamed Mr. Martinez and will not begin calling him names
and insulting him now. I have attempted to behave fairly and honorably
throughout this matter, stepping in only when it seemed to me that others
were being unfairly treated and leaving the discussion when that
treatment was directed at myself. I hope that my lack of comment in the
face of many accusations against me has not allowed these things to
damage my name. Now I again quit the field (as I will always do when
discussion turns to flamefest) and return to the actual Tolkien postings.
Please join me there.
He obviously didn't stay there long, did he?
>>Undoubtedly people like Dunkerson and Bader persist in their harassment and
>>lies BECAUSE they know they have deceived at least a few people regarding
>>me.
>
>But including their names in an (as far as I can tell) unrelated post will
>not help. Responding when you feel you are attacked is one thing, but I
>couldn't find a cause for it here. Please repost the part you took offense
>at, and I'll rethink my words, retract them if need be.
I would prefer not to go on with this, but Dunkerson has taken opportunity
after opportunity to inject himself into flame wars started by other people
to cast his own aspersions upon me since late 1997. He has lied about me,
misrepresented my articles, lied about himself, and generally encouraged
people to flame and harass me through his own intrusive flaming and
unprovoked attacks upon my character.
Dunkerson set himself up to be my judge, jury, and executioner and he's
never backed down from his abuse or attempted to make amends to the news
groups he has offended through his deceptions.
Bader is simply a twisted flamer who seems to enjoy stoking the fire
whenever he sees a flame war. If he has posted half a dozen legitimate
Tolkien discussion articles I would be amazed to learn so. Deja.Com
documents his abuse since last year in dozens of unprovoked flame articles
he has posted.
I don't see the need to cite his articles.
softrat
Martinez) wrote:
>I have no interest in "creating an atmosphere of good will and positive
>debate" with people who, when they cannot sway me to their views, resort to
>flaming and character assassination.
Or apparently with anyone else either!!
Conrad Dunkerson
> Personally, I do _not_ think you are any of the 3 above.
> I have not been here that long, but in the brief period
> since I have, I've seen or read nothing that would give
> me the impression of you that Michael states he has.
Well, that's a relief. Sorry for the paranoia, but every time I let an
unflattering characterization of myself pass unchallenged I worry that
someone might take it at face value.
> I cannot understand why Michael would be so vehement
> about you, or indeed Joe Bader, unless it's part of a
> history I'm unaware of.
I'm not sure myself. We've certainly got a history, but he seems to
dislike me more than most. Whatever, not worth dwelling on.
<of my statement that Michael's opinion did matter to me>
> Which (where it concerns Tolkien) is a shame, but I fully
> understand.
True, he is one of the more knowledgeable people around in regards to
Tolkien's works. However, 'knowledge' differs from 'opinion'. I'm
quite happy to read his messages on the contents of the texts - just not
always his opinions of what those texts mean or on the members of the
NGs.
Again, thanks and sorry for contributing to the continued OT discussion.
Seems to have spawned some rather lengthy rants which I'll have to leave
alone or we'll be at this forever. Just try to remember that sometimes
people are >trying< to stay out of the flaming and seeing accusations
about themselves echoed or granted substantiality makes it that much
more difficult.
Michael Martinez
<7kej8q$6mo$5...@news.worldonline.nl> "db" did proclaim:
>
>
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7ke40v$138...@Org.xenite.org>...
>
>Even is there was a need, you could not do it alone. But you could take an
>interest for the sake of the NG in general.
Every time I respond to someone new I am polite and cordial. Every time I
respond to someone old, if they are not flaming me, I am polite and cordial.
Every time someone gets a little snippy with me, I get snippy back.
I make a positive contribution to the Tolkien news groups nearly every day. I
don't see that I need to put forth any more effort than I have.
>>Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
>><7k0a61$klt$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>Yes, MANY of them. The recent flame-fests are actually quite mild
>>>compared to some of what used to go on. When every posting you make, no
>>>matter what the topic, is followed with extremely personal flames things
>>>get old very fast.
>
>This is the quotation you showed me (if I understand correctly) that made
>you name Conrad specifically. You may feel he implied you in his post, but
>if I were you, I would not respond (if at all) until the attack was
>indisputable. And even then...
The attack is indisputable. Conrad, like Joe Bader, tends to target only one
person in this news group, and he has done so many times since late 1997 (Bader
started flaming in 1998). I don't recall if Dunkerson specifically attacked any
of the people who dared speak their support of me (or criticism of the flamers),
but there was always someone willing to stoop to that task.
Anyway, he started this and he can end any time he wishes to. I've just never
seen any evidence from him that he wishes to end it.
So be it.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
Michael Martinez
<376bb7c7...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM> sof...@pobox.com did proclaim:
>>debate" with people who, when they cannot sway me to their views, resort to
>>flaming and character assassination.
>
Liar. Why don't you try for a third Tolkien-related article this month, instead
your 300th flame?
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
Michael Martinez
<376af5bb...@news.primary.net> j...@primary.net did proclaim:
>
>Liar.
>
>Citations, if you please.
>
>On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:23:17 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>
><<snip>>
>>A brief search of Deja.Com could show you the problems Dunkerson and Bader
There's one for you, you liar.
Michael Martinez
<7kej8p$6mo$2...@news.worldonline.nl> "db" did proclaim:
>
>
>
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7kdva5$138...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>
>>THIS is a flame. Dunkerson and others have accused me of initiating flame
>>wars I did not start.
>>
>>>I don't think you are the flamer Michael says you are,
>>
>>I do not lie.
I wasn't accusing you or implying you were accusing me of lying. I was simply
pointing out, reiterating, that I don't lie. Since I don't set out to attack
other people on the news groups, I have absolutely nothing to gain by anyone's
standards from lying. I came here for discussion, not to match skills in
character assassination with people like Conrad Dunkerson. But I have to share
the bandwidth with them.
>My admittedly limited experience has given me no cause to think of Conrad as a
>flamer. Or of you as a liar.
Your mileage may vary. Frankly, I found his flame of you to be EXTREMELY
ironic. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. One could say, "What goes
around, comes around."
At least I had the excuse (poor as it was) of being very feverish when I flamed
Nick Cuce for saying much the same thing you said. Conrad's memory seems to be
going. His only justification for branding me a bully was my reaction to Cuce's
own intrusion (as an attempt at peacemaking) into a flame war (that I did not
start).
>>A brief search of Deja.Com could show you the problems Dunkerson and Bader
>>have caused in this news group.
>
>Something that would require energy exceeding my present level.
Well, I don't know about your present level, but it took me about two minutes to
find the articles I was looking for. Of course, I knew what to look for. It
also took me about five minutes to confirm my suspicions about what I would not
find. So, Conrad Dunkerson was worth the 10-20 minutes it took me to compose
that article, research included.
>>It was inevitable, of course, that you would be flamed by Conrad for saying
>>something diplomatic. His intention is to entice as many people as
>>possible into taking sides, preferably his, in a flame war long of his own
>>making.
>
>
>Michael, I don't consider myself flamed.
A flame is a flame. It is to your credit that you don't take offense so easily.
I hope you don't see worse, and that if you do you don't take offense any more
easily than you did this time.
"It is too late for me, my son."
db
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7ke40v$138...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>
>>Counterproductive to creating an atmospere of good will and positive
debate,
>>or barring that, to limiting the negative remarks about each other to the
>>absolute minimum.
>
>I have no interest in "creating an atmosphere of good will and positive
>debate" with people who, when they cannot sway me to their views, resort to
>flaming and character assassination. The Tolkien groups were civil before
>they chose to bring them down to the muck and mire of personal
>vilification. They've made their bed, let them sleep in it. There was no
>need for me to "create an atmosphere of good will and positive debate"
>before the flamers started with their nonsense, and if they would just stop
>NOW there would be no need, and even if I tried (yet again) it would do no
>good.
Even is there was a need, you could not do it alone. But you could take an
interest for the sake of the NG in general. This goes of course for all
concerned. Regardless of who starts what, I really feel that (taking myself
for this hypthetical example) if I were flamed unprovoked, I would either
not repond at all, or in a way that would make the contrast between me and
the flamer even more poignant than it was already. By shouting and throwing
insults back, viewed from the sidelines, it just looks like bad mannered
people fighting, and interest for who started fades real quick, if it
existed at all.
>Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
><7k0a61$klt$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>Yes, MANY of them. The recent flame-fests are actually quite mild
>>compared to some of what used to go on. When every posting you make, no
>>matter what the topic, is followed with extremely personal flames things
>>get old very fast.
This is the quotation you showed me (if I understand correctly) that made
you name Conrad specifically. You may feel he implied you in his post, but
if I were you, I would not respond (if at all) until the attack was
indisputable. And even then...
Michael, we talked at length and you know my position on this. I really
believe there's nothing to defend. No one here can touch me, no one here can
threaten me in any way, and I don't believe anyone wants to. So what else
could cause me to go to such lengths?
If someone wants to be a pain, no one else can stop him. All the attempts to
do so cause more irritation.
db
db
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7kdva5$138...@Org.xenite.org>...
>
>THIS is a flame. Dunkerson and others have accused me of initiating flame
>wars I did not start.
>
>>I don't think you are the flamer Michael says you are,
>
>I do not lie.
I am not saying you do. My admittedly limited experience has given me no
cause to think of Conrad as a flamer. Or of you as a liar.
>
>A brief search of Deja.Com could show you the problems Dunkerson and Bader
>have caused in this news group.
Something that would require energy exceeding my present level.
>As for his limited understanding of
>Tolkien, that is demonstrable only by sifting through his articles and
>comparing what he says to what the books say. I have no further wish to do
>that, and in any event he could come back with "That's just your
>interpretation" or "not in my opinion", blah, blah, blah.
>
>It was inevitable, of course, that you would be flamed by Conrad for saying
>something diplomatic. His intention is to entice as many people as
>possible into taking sides, preferably his, in a flame war long of his own
>making.
Michael, I don't consider myself flamed. If I am, well then I must be thick
(and I have been accused of that many times so don't rule it out). But it
seemed to me that Conrad expressed his concerns, in an urgent manner,
perhaps, but certainly within _my_ bounds of decency. Nothing he said caused
me to take his post personal.
>
>No one forced him to involve himself in the flaming -- he did it of his own
>volition.
No way to judge except by the method you recommended so - no comment.
db
Joe Bader
Citations, if you please.
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:23:17 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
Martinez) wrote:
<<snip>>
>A brief search of Deja.Com could show you the problems Dunkerson and Bader
<<snip>>
Öjevind Lång
Michael Martinez hath written:
>On the day of Sat, 19 Jun 1999 00:29:35 +0200 in article
><7kej8p$6mo$2...@news.worldonline.nl> "db" did proclaim:
>>
>>Michael Martinez wrote in message <7kdva5$138...@Org.xenite.org>...
>>>
<snip>
>>My admittedly limited experience has given me no cause to think of Conrad
as a
>>flamer. Or of you as a liar.
>
>Your mileage may vary. Frankly, I found his flame of you to be EXTREMELY
>ironic. I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Tssk, tssk, Michael. Do you find flaming amusing? Mind you, I belive that DB
has the right of it. Conrad took pains to stress that he didn't think DB had
insulted him on purpose.
>
>At least I had the excuse (poor as it was) of being very feverish when I
flamed
>Nick Cuce for saying much the same thing you said. Conrad's memory seems
to be
>going. His only justification for branding me a bully was my reaction to
Cuce's
>own intrusion (as an attempt at peacemaking) into a flame war (that I did
not
>start).
(Yawn.) Who the fuck is interested in this? When did it happen - before or
after the launching of the "Titanic"?
>>>A brief search of Deja.Com could show you the problems Dunkerson and
Bader
>>>have caused in this news group.
>>
>>Something that would require energy exceeding my present level.
>
>Well, I don't know about your present level, but it took me about two
minutes to
>find the articles I was looking for. Of course, I knew what to look for.
It
>also took me about five minutes to confirm my suspicions about what I would
not
>find. So, Conrad Dunkerson was worth the 10-20 minutes it took me to
compose
>that article, research included.
As you yourelf pointed out: mileage varies. Most of us are not interested in
digging in the archives for old flame wars.
>
<snip>
>>Michael, I don't consider myself flamed.
>
>A flame is a flame. It is to your credit that you don't take offense so
easily.
>I hope you don't see worse, and that if you do you don't take offense any
more
>easily than you did this time.
>
Not only do I share that hope; I'm convinced that it won't happen.
Öjevind
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez hath written:
>>Your mileage may vary. Frankly, I found his flame of you to be EXTREMELY
>>ironic. I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
>
>Tssk, tssk, Michael. Do you find flaming amusing? Mind you, I belive that DB
>has the right of it. Conrad took pains to stress that he didn't think DB had
>insulted him on purpose.
Conrad flamed, you're flaming. Nothing new.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
softrat
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <vCLa3.589$301....@nntpserver.swip.net>, "Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>>Michael Martinez hath written:
>>>Your mileage may vary. Frankly, I found his flame of you to be EXTREMELY
>>>ironic. I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
>>
>>Tssk, tssk, Michael. Do you find flaming amusing? Mind you, I belive that DB
>>has the right of it. Conrad took pains to stress that he didn't think DB had
>>insulted him on purpose.
>
>Conrad flamed, you're flaming. Nothing new.
Just as a point of reference, Michael, is this a flame?
Michael Martinez
<376f05f4...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM> sof...@pobox.com did proclaim:
>
>Just as a point of reference, Michael, is this a flame?
No, that's a question. And you'll respond by saying....
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
db
I don' remeber what Luke replied, but if I did, I would have quoted him
here, so consider that done.
db
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7kf0ql$10...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>
>A flame is a flame. It is to your credit that you don't take offense so
easily.
>I hope you don't see worse, and that if you do you don't take offense any
more
>easily than you did this time.
>
Michael Martinez
<7kivmf$sj0$2...@news.worldonline.nl> "db" did proclaim:
>
>Michael, I'm glad you can still see some fun in there too.
>I don' remeber what Luke replied, but if I did, I would have quoted him
>here, so consider that done.
I don't think Luke said anything more at that point. I just remember them
walking through the door at the end of the corridor and then we saw the shuttle
take off.
db
eyes) was: "It's never too late father!"
And he would have been right. As we all saw later.
db
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7kj70n$s...@drn.newsguy.com>...
softrat
wrote:
>On the day of Sat, 19 Jun 1999 21:05:25 GMT in article
><376f05f4...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM> sof...@pobox.com did proclaim:
>>
>>Just as a point of reference, Michael, is this a flame?
>
>No, that's a question. And you'll respond by saying....
Oh.
Louis Epstein
: In article <RoO83.10377$Nc.1...@nntpserver.swip.net>, "Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
: >I think Tolkien may to some extent have been inspired by the fact that the
: >Corsairs of Umbar harried the coasts of Gondor rather in the manner of North
: >African corsairs harrying the coasts of the northern Mediterranean through
: >much of the Middle Ages - AND the New Era.
:
: Or by the fact that Cilesian Pirates harried the coasts of the
: Mediterranean centuries before the end of the Empire. Tolkien wrote very
: generic statements about the Corsairs. Pirates still exist in this day and
: age, and they are the substance of legend throughout the millenia.
:
: [snip]
:
: >In other words, they were not an exclusive Medieval phenomenon.
: > One medieval aspect of Gondor is that they do have a sort of feudal system
: >of fealty. Dol Amroth, Anfalas and the other principalities are referred to
: >as "fiefs", and the King of Rohan holds his entire realm in fief to the
: >ruler of Gondor, who is his liege lord; there is a commitment for each to
: >come to the aid of the other in times of need.
:
: No, they do not have a sort of feudal system. Tolkien never stipulates or
: depicts such relationships, and certainly the relationship between Rohan
: and Gondor -- two sovereign nations engaged in a mutual defense compact --
: cannot be described as "feudal". There is no senior partner in the
: relationship.
The terms definitely make Gondor the senior partner.
Michael Martinez
<Y4ud3.14173$4e1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net> l...@put.com did proclaim:
>
>The terms definitely make Gondor the senior partner.
In what way?
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\//
deanfl...@my-deja.com
If Tolkien is not mediaeval, then neither is Malory. After all Malory
never gives explicit and exhaustive details about the feudal relations
between characters or the manorial economic system or whatever else you
care to define the middle ages by. The middle ages were diverse and
comlicated and long, allowing for all kinds of exceptions and
inconsistencies. When you read Tolkien what do you picture? Men in chain
and furs and women in flowing gowns or people in togas or top hats?
Dean Randall Flemming, Dominion of Canada.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
inkliing
>If Tolkien is not mediaeval, then neither is Malory. After all Malory
>never gives explicit and exhaustive details about the feudal relations
>between characters or the manorial economic system or whatever else you
>care to define the middle ages by. The middle ages were diverse and
>comlicated and long, allowing for all kinds of exceptions and
>inconsistencies. When you read Tolkien what do you picture? Men in chain
>and furs and women in flowing gowns or people in togas or top hats?
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
agrred. tolkien *was* medieval.
O.L.
Öjevind Lång
inkliing hath written:
<snip>
>
>agrred. tolkien *was* medieval.
>
>O.L.
Not completely. He got inspiration from various historical periods, from the
Ancient Age to early industrial. Much is of course clearly influenced by
various aspects of the many centuries of European history called "the Middle
Ages".
Öjevind
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> contains these words:
> inkliing hath written:
Yes to both; as if a basically medieval culture had endured for
thousands of years, but without developing anything like
industrialism -- except in Mordor, which would explain why everyone
else avoided it. It has reached, in fact, the sophisticated and
sanitized version of the legendary Middle Ages which romantic
Victorians preferred, and which Tolkien no doubt read about as a boy.
Tolkien himself cited the basically Anglo-Norman clothing and
weaponry of the Bayeux Tapestry and the medieval MS imitations of
Pauline Baynes as suitable illustrative sources -- though you can't
even whisper this when Mike Martinez is around, as he constantly
tries to scream you down, despite having no contrary evidence and no
more constructive suggestions. The fact remains that the overall
culture of Middle-Earth is basically medieval -- using, for example,
mail armour rather than the more advanced plate.
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown -- The Castle of the Winds -- now a Bookwatch SF bestseller
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Öjevind Lång
Mike Scott Rohan hath written:
<snip>
>Yes to both; as if a basically medieval culture had endured for
>thousands of years, but without developing anything like
>industrialism -- except in Mordor, which would explain why everyone
>else avoided it. It has reached, in fact, the sophisticated and
>sanitized version of the legendary Middle Ages which romantic
>Victorians preferred, and which Tolkien no doubt read about as a boy.
The point about Tolkien's (very Victorian) idealization of the Middle Ages
and his hatred of "Mordorian" machinery is, I believe, very important if one
is to understand the man's vision.
>
>Tolkien himself cited the basically Anglo-Norman clothing and
>weaponry of the Bayeux Tapestry and the medieval MS imitations of
>Pauline Baynes as suitable illustrative sources -- though you can't
>even whisper this when Mike Martinez is around, as he constantly
>tries to scream you down, despite having no contrary evidence and no
>more constructive suggestions. The fact remains that the overall
>culture of Middle-Earth is basically medieval -- using, for example,
>mail armour rather than the more advanced plate.
Agreed, as long as nobody says "Middle-earth *was* medieval", since that is
overstating the case. In the Shire, for example, we really have an idealized
image of rural England at any time from the 16th to the 19th Century.
Öjevind
Support your local Balrog - he's too drunk to stand on his own.
Robert Brady
>Yes to both; as if a basically medieval culture had endured for
>thousands of years, but without developing anything like
>industrialism -- except in Mordor, which would explain why everyone
>else avoided it. It has reached, in fact, the sophisticated and
>sanitized version of the legendary Middle Ages which romantic
>Victorians preferred, and which Tolkien no doubt read about as a boy.
Saruman had machinery, as demonstrated by the Isengard stuff, and the
industrialisation of the Shire.
Some people suggest the Dwarves had invented the steam-engine (or at least
some mechanism for keeping the vast mines of Moria dry...).
In some versions of the Numenor legend, the Numenoreans had metal ships
which had no sails, and advanced artillery weaponry. The exiles from
Numenor developed aeroplanes, or some other kind of flying vessels.
--
Robert
deanfl...@my-deja.com
The middle ages were full of machinery. Please read Lynn White's studies
on mediaeval technology and the love affair that the mediaeval West had
with it.
They invented all kinds of clocks. They mined deep under the mountains
for silver and salt and coal. There was this monastery in France to
which Whita refers that had running water and water power to do all the
mundane jobs such as laundry, turning the rotisserie and lifting the
gates.
That said, I agree that Tolkien was idealizing the middle ages and
probably intended the pollution of Mordor, Isengard and Sharky's Shire
as an industrial intrusion.
Dean Randall Flemming, Dominion of Canada.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
softrat
>The middle ages were full of machinery. Please read Lynn White's studies
>on mediaeval technology and the love affair that the mediaeval West had
>with it.
>
>Dean Randall Flemming, Dominion of Canada.
We, who know, must never forget with whom we are dealing and their
obvious educational level. Just let it ride. They won't believe you
anyway. It's a long cherished preconception of the type most
impervious to facts.
"And King Alfred ran around in animal skins, right?"
Michael Martinez
inkliing did proclaim:
>
>it hath been written by deanflemming...
>
>>If Tolkien is not mediaeval, then neither is Malory. After all Malory
>>never gives explicit and exhaustive details about the feudal relations
>>between characters or the manorial economic system or whatever else you
>>care to define the middle ages by. The middle ages were diverse and
>>comlicated and long, allowing for all kinds of exceptions and
>>inconsistencies. When you read Tolkien what do you picture? Men in chain
>>and furs and women in flowing gowns or people in togas or top hats?
>
[yawn]
Tolkien was about as "medieval" as Malory was Chinese.
What does "medieval" mean? It's Latin for "middle ages". The name is
generically applied to any historical period that falls between two other
historical periods. THE LORD OF THE RINGS doesn't fall into that kind of a
historical period -- it comes at the end of Tolkien's long pseudo-history.
Was Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age like Europe during any period of
Medieval history? Nope. You have absolutely no manorial system, no church, no
feudalism, no distribution of the old "imperial" lands (whatever those would be)
among barbarians, no invasion by a rival (and religiously inspired)
civilization, no crusades, no gradual rise and recovery of knowledge and
economic growth, no major shifts in language, no mergence of cultures -- in
short, none of the hallmarks of European medieval history and culture appear in
Middle-earth.
Michael Martinez
<199907071...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> Mike did proclaim:
>Tolkien himself cited the basically Anglo-Norman clothing and
>weaponry of the Bayeux Tapestry and the medieval MS imitations of
>Pauline Baynes as suitable illustrative sources -- though you can't
>even whisper this when Mike Martinez is around, as he constantly
>tries to scream you down, despite having no contrary evidence and no
>more constructive suggestions.
Do you EVER stop?
Michael Martinez
<nrIg3.5485$nZ5....@nntpserver.swip.net> "Öjevind did proclaim:
>The point about Tolkien's (very Victorian) idealization of the Middle Ages
>and his hatred of "Mordorian" machinery is, I believe, very important if one
>is to understand the man's vision.
He is probably turning in his grave right now....
>>Tolkien himself cited the basically Anglo-Norman clothing and
>>weaponry of the Bayeux Tapestry and the medieval MS imitations of
>>Pauline Baynes as suitable illustrative sources -- though you can't
>>even whisper this when Mike Martinez is around, as he constantly
>>tries to scream you down, despite having no contrary evidence and no
>>more constructive suggestions. The fact remains that the overall
>>culture of Middle-Earth is basically medieval -- using, for example,
>>mail armour rather than the more advanced plate.
>
>Agreed, as long as nobody says "Middle-earth *was* medieval", since that is
>overstating the case...
Overstating or mis-stating? In fact, Tolkien never made any such statement as
Mike Scott Rohan suggests. What Tolkien said was quite different. He
interjected the comment about Pauline Baynes' illustrations for FARMER GILES
into the middle of an answer about clothing in Middle-earth. Her illustrations
had nothing to do with Middle-earth (THE HOBBIT, THE LORD OF THE RINGS, etc.).
The fact remains that Middle-earth was far removed from the romantic notions of
medievality some people would ascribe to it in despite of the author's protests.
>...In the Shire, for example, we really have an idealized
>image of rural England at any time from the 16th to the 19th Century.
Mostly just of Warwick, according to Tolkien.
Mike Scott Rohan
from Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> contains these words:
> Tolkien was about as "medieval" as Malory was Chinese.
> What does "medieval" mean? It's Latin for "middle ages". The name is
> generically applied to any historical period that falls between two other
> historical periods. THE LORD OF THE RINGS doesn't fall into that kind of a
> historical period -- it comes at the end of Tolkien's long pseudo-history.
> Was Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age like Europe during any period of
> Medieval history? Nope. You have absolutely no manorial system, no church, no
> feudalism, no distribution of the old "imperial" lands (whatever those would be)
> among barbarians, no invasion by a rival (and religiously inspired)
> civilization, no crusades, no gradual rise and recovery of knowledge and
> economic growth, no major shifts in language, no mergence of cultures -- in
> short, none of the hallmarks of European medieval history and culture appear in
> Middle-earth.
Michael, you are once again singling out what isn't medieval about
Middle Earth, and carefully ignoring what is.
For Middle Earth to be called "medieval" it does not have to be a
carbon copy of every single minute aspect of the Middle Ages; it
merely has to be broadly medieval -- more medieval than it is
anything else. And that it most certainly is.
You do not need historical specifics such as crusades or any of the
others you single out for Middle Earth to be called medieval.
Nonetheless, even some of those do in fact have very clear analogues
in Middle Earth. For example, invasions by rival and religiously
inspired civilizations, you have exactly that, both in Mordor, with
the orcs remarkably close in feeling to the threats posed by Magyars
and later Huns; and you have a close correspondence to the Arab
incursions in the Haradrim. As to rise and recovery of knowledge and
economic growth, isn't that what Aragorn's accession brings about? A
post-Dark Ages reunification and resurgence of a unifiying culture.
As to major shifts in language and mergence of culture, what about
the gradual incursion of lesser men on the Numenorean culture?
Of course, there are no exact correspondences, nor could there
possibly be, unless Tolkien had set the book in the real Middle Ages
-- in which case we wouldn't be having this argument. But that would
be the only possible way in which *your* conditions could be met.
And there are historical specifics which are very, very strongly
medieval and nothing else. Arms -- straight "Frankish" swords,
spears, longbows, mostly. Armour -- mail, mostly, with helm, shield
(discarded after medieval times) and a suggestion of plate. Defense
-- castle, tower and fortified town. Agriculture. There is no hint of
industrialism or capitalism, except on the most basic level;
craftsmanship remains almost wholly individual.
Most of all, there's the entire concept of monarchic rule and social
structure -- corresponding most closely, in some cases, to pre-feudal
states, with the concepts of allegiance, vassalage and duty owed
which led to the later and more formal feudal system. Even the
vice-regal Denethor accepts service by oath in a thoroughly medieval
manner. The kings have institutions such as heralds, governed by
formal conventions in the medieval manner.
And of course there's the matter of costume. Tolkien's only specific
costume references for Middle-Earth are to Pauline Baynes's Farmer
Giles illustrations, sourced and in some cases copied directly from
medieval MSS, and to the Bayeux tapestry. Those are early medieval,
and there's no arguing with that, at all. The elements of costume
described are all consistent with broadly medieval dress -- cloak and
hood, for example -- and not with any garb from any other culture.
So, "Tolkien was no more medieval than Malory was Chinese" is an
extreme overstatement. It is contradicted by the entire feel of the
book. Tolkien was aiming for a fantasy world, certainly, but one with
a specifically European medieval atmosphere. Of course it does not
and cannot reproduce the real Middle Ages in all their complexity; it
does not have to, and couldn't. But as a fantasy world it must
reflect something of the real world, some formative influence -- and
that influence is very narrow and specific. Of course it's idealized,
both as a matter of legend and as reflecting the sanitized concept of
the Middle Ages created by the romantic writers Tolkien would have
read as a child -- and in some ways by medieval writers themselves.
So, the book is not specifically "medieval" in the sense that, say,
Ivanhoe, or The Long Ships, or The White Company is. It isn't a
historical novel, and cannot be called to historical account. But it
is much, much more like the world they portray than it is like any
other, and draws on many elements of its history, sometimes directly,
sometimes by analogy. And it shares much of their appeal.
And there is one thing you have never, ever answered -- and which you
must. Even fantasy worlds have roots that must be recognisable --
*especially* fantasy worlds, which can't be built from the core
upwards as SF ones can, but rely more strongly on human links. If
Middle Earth doesn't draw these from apparently medieval sources,
what does it draw on? You must establish whatever this may be -- to
criteria at least as demanding as your own.
Mike Scott Rohan
from Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> contains these words:
> On the day of Wed, 7 Jul 1999 13:48:45 +0100 in article
> <199907071...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> Mike did proclaim:
> >Tolkien himself cited the basically Anglo-Norman clothing and
> >weaponry of the Bayeux Tapestry and the medieval MS imitations of
> >Pauline Baynes as suitable illustrative sources -- though you can't
> >even whisper this when Mike Martinez is around, as he constantly
> >tries to scream you down, despite having no contrary evidence and no
> >more constructive suggestions.
> Do you EVER stop?
"That truth should be silent, I had almost forgot."
McREsq
writes:
>Tolkien was about as "medieval" as Malory was Chinese.
I wouldn't go that far. Tolkien's Middle EArth appears to have aspects of
various time periods - from Mesopotamian through renaissance. With that
observation - such as it is - in mind, I think there are certain medieval
aspects to Middle Earth.
>
>What does "medieval" mean? It's Latin for "middle ages". The name is
>generically applied to any historical period that falls between two other
>historical periods. THE LORD OF THE RINGS doesn't fall into that kind of a
>historical period -- it comes at the end of Tolkien's long pseudo-history.
We tend to concentrate here on the Third Age, which in a sense is a Middle
Ages. It's the time between the ages of Elvish and Mannish dominance.
>
>Was Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age like Europe during any period of
>Medieval history? Nope. You have absolutely no manorial system
I don't remember reading anything describing low level economics and government
in Gondor.
> no church,
true
>no feudalism,
Certainly, not as complete a system as found in "our" middle ages, but there
are aspects. In one of his later letters, Tolkien, in discussing the governing
of Gondor under Denethor and Aragorn specificlly refers to "Lords of the
Fiefs." IIRC the terms southern fiefs and liege-lord appears in the texts.
> no distribution of the old "imperial" lands (whatever those would
>be)
>among barbarians,
The "distribution" of old Roman lands to barbarians occured well before the
fall of Rome and the Dark Ages. Germanic kings controlled modern day Britain,
France and Germany long before 476 AD. A "distribution" in any event did not
occur. The gothic and germanic invaders took what they wanted and oftentimes
Roman decrees were merely legitimized existing reality.
> no invasion by a rival (and religiously inspired)
>civilization
What about Sauron's invasion of Eriador in the Second Age? Quite analogous to
Charles Martel stopping the Muslim invaders in France.
, no crusades,
Later Numenorean invasions of Middle Earth. Numenorean "defeats" of Sauron and
Angmar. Gondorian invasions to the South and East.
no gradual rise and recovery of knowledge and
>economic growth, no major shifts in language, no mergence of cultures -- in
>short, none of the hallmarks of European medieval history and culture appear
>in
>Middle-earth.
>
Again, I think you go to far here. Middle Earth certainly is not a medieval
culture but certain analogous aspects are present in Middle Earth. If I may be
so bold, I think it is incorrect to try to find analogous historical events.
Looking at more generalized governmental and cultural structures is more
helpful. The Faithful remnant culture in Middle Earth is much like Middle Ages
Europe. In the West, there was a complete fall such as what happened in Arnor.
In the East, the Empire survived and indeed flourished before beginning a long
decline - very similar to Gondor. Of course, the similarity ends there.
Constantinople ultimately fell to the Turks in 1453, whereas Gondor defeated
Sauron, reunited the Kingdom and entered a new Golden Age.
Governmentally, there does seem to be a feudalism-lite system. It is certainly
not the formailstic entrenched system found in Medieval Europe, but there are
some similarities.
Technologically, Middle EArth didn't get to Renaissance levels.
It bears mentioning that, at least in Western Europe, the fall of Rome meant a
descent into almost pre-classical levels of development. Thus, technologically
and culturally (but not governmentally), there are some similarities to
Mespotamian development in Western Europe during the dark ages.
Russ
RLV
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7m45qk$8...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>On the day of 6 Jul 1999 16:41:14 -0700 in article
<7lu46q$1e...@drn.newsguy.com>
>inkliing did proclaim:
>>
>>it hath been written by deanflemming...
>>agrred. tolkien *was* medieval.
>
>[yawn]
>
>Tolkien was about as "medieval" as Malory was Chinese.
>
>What does "medieval" mean? It's Latin for "middle ages". The name is
>generically applied to any historical period that falls between two other
>historical periods.
That's good. So, all periods are medieval, since history has no limits
(well, maybe the Big Bang / Creation; let's make it all periods save two).
>THE LORD OF THE RINGS doesn't fall into that kind of a
>historical period -- it comes at the end of Tolkien's long pseudo-history.
And the Fourth age is but a dream.
<snip>
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Michael Martinez
<199907091...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> Mike did proclaim:
If only you were interested in telling the truth, and not engaging in character
assassination by the yard.