Was Tolkien anti-hindu?
ville terminale
But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
gang?
Why didn't Tolkien have hindu people side with white people against
Saruman and his ork clan? Was Tolkien saying that nonwhites are not
to be trusted and will always be the friend of the white man's enemy?
Conrad B Dunkerson
news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
They weren't Hindu.
> If there's such a thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from
> Alexander the Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used
> elephants in battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
Why? He couldn't have gotten the idea from Hannibal's use of elephants
against Rome (a much closer fit BTW)? Or somewhere else entirely?
> The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
They looked like Hindus to you?
Really?
Come on.
> Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
> gang?
He didn't.
timananda
> Reply-To: "Conrad B Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.arts.movies.past-films,rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.fan.tolkien,rec.a
> rts.books.tolkien
> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:52:25 GMT
> Subject: Re: Was Tolkien anti-hindu?
>
> "ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
>
>> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
>
> They weren't Hindu.
>
>> If there's such a thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from
>> Alexander the Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used
>> elephants in battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
>
> Why? He couldn't have gotten the idea from Hannibal's use of elephants
> against Rome (a much closer fit BTW)? Or somewhere else entirely?
>
>> The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
>> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
Evil men did fight on the side of Sauron.
>
> They looked like Hindus to you?
>
> Really?
>
> Come on.
>
>> Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
>> gang?
>
> He didn't.
>
I wasn't aware that you could tell someone's religious persuasion from the
colour of their skin (or what animal they ride...) :-/
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
*PLONK*
--
Frank in Seattle
___________
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
pawn
> In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
>
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
> thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
> Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
> battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
-snip remaining foolishness-
The Mumakai were manned by the Southrons. If your theory had any
validity, would he have not chosen the Easterlings?
Bruce Tucker
>
> They weren't Hindu.
Nor were they exactly elephants - any more than the creatures the Nazgul
rode (referred to in movie literature as "fell beasts") were
pterodactyls. It is *fantasy* literature after all.
> > If there's such a thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea
from
> > Alexander the Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used
> > elephants in battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
>
> Why? He couldn't have gotten the idea from Hannibal's use of
elephants
> against Rome (a much closer fit BTW)? Or somewhere else entirely?
Certainly. Hannibal's use is the most well-known today, but it was
actually the end of the era of military use of elephants as the Romans
developed tactics that made them obsolete. The heydey of elephant
warfare in the West was during the wars between the Diadochoi,
Alexander's successors (none of whom were dark-skinned Hindus), and the
kingdoms they founded in the Hellenistic Age which followed. In the East
elephants continued to be used in direct combat in some parts of the
world (Thailand, IIRC) into the 17th or 18th century. Their users would
have been Southeast Asian Buddhists and not dark-skinned Hindus.
In short, making the connection that because Hindu/Indian people
invented elephant warfare and Tolkien included elephants among the bad
guys' armies he must have been prejudiced against Hindus makes about as
much sense as concluding that, because Central Asian people invented
cavalry warfare, an author who depicts his bad guys as riding horses
must be prejudiced against Central Asian people.
> > The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
> > but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
>
> They looked like Hindus to you?
For my part, I've always had a very tough time trying to predict
religious beliefs based on racial stereotypes. I thought the mahouts and
warriors atop the Mumakil looked more like Scientologists myself, but
what do I know?
If we want to talk about Tolkien, and not Peter Jackson, the
particularly dark-skinned Men described in the novel were not the ones
associated with the Oliphaunts; as has been discussed here many times,
Sauron's human armies were drawn from a vast array of geographic areas
and demographic types, and it's a mistake to assume that all of them
were dark-skinned because some of them were described that way. None of
their religious beliefs is discussed in any detail, and certainly
nothing resembling Hinduism in the slightest is mentioned among the
beliefs of the enemy troops.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Hasmonean Tazmanian
Conrad B Dunkerson wrote:
> "ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
>
>> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
>
>
> They weren't Hindu.
>
>> If there's such a thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from
>> Alexander the Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used
>> elephants in battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
>
>
> Why? He couldn't have gotten the idea from Hannibal's use of elephants
> against Rome (a much closer fit BTW)? Or somewhere else entirely?
>
The Persians. The Persians used to import elephants from India, and had
been using them in battles since ancient times. The epic battles
between Greece (small, disunited) and Persia (large, trying to bring all
of Greece under its sway) are very similar to LOTR, and are a pivotal
moment in western history. Sometimes it seems that ALL western battles
are cast this way--even this present battle in Iraq. "They could be
anywhere..." etc. type of rhetoric reinforces this fear.
BTW the Persian elephant army was ended when the Romans took a tour of
the stables and crushed the male elephants' nuts. There was another
elephant corps later on which was used fighting against the Arabs, but
it was ineffective. The Arabs rode camels, which had a weird unfamiliar
smell, and this made the elephants run amok trampling their own side.
The Persians had chained their soldiers together to prevent them from
running away, but this probably only added to the mixup when the
elephants trampled them down. Some soldier returned the favour by
finding and killing their own king, the shah. That would have actually
made the book a bit more sinister, making the orcs chained to one
another to force them to fight.
Hasan
>> The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
>> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
>
>
> They looked like Hindus to you?
>
This guy is obviously trolling.
Hasan
Derek Janssen
wrote:
> In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
(And who does a.f.t and r.a.b.t do battle with?--
Isn't this fun, guys?...Over on RAMC-F, we get to do this four times a
week!)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
ville terminale
> "ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
>
> > But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
>
> They weren't Hindu.
>
> > If there's such a thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from
> > Alexander the Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used
> > elephants in battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
>
> Why? He couldn't have gotten the idea from Hannibal's use of elephants
> against Rome (a much closer fit BTW)? Or somewhere else entirely?
>
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> >> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
> >
> >
> > They looked like Hindus to you?
> >
>
> This guy is obviously trolling.
the degree of cleverness is akin trolling soc-men in favor of child support
not even interesting enought to make it to net-kookiness
the halting syntax tactically
designed discordia
sounds like its flamebot
talkiing bizarrely
however nothing attracts trolls like a bunch of pretentious idiots
with no sense of humor or perspective
Derek Janssen
>>>>The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
>>>>but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
>>>
>>>
>>>They looked like Hindus to you?
>>>
>>
>>This guy is obviously trolling.
And not under girls' names, this time--
(Gee, he hasn't been for a while now, wonder what happened?)
> however nothing attracts trolls like a bunch of pretentious idiots
> with no sense of humor or perspective
...adding crossposts to alt.religion.scientology.
Derek Janssen (whoops, guess that one fell off!) :)
dja...@rcn.com
Nuki Mouse
news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
Lets see....
New poster.
Blatant troll.
Obviously has an over inflated ego.
Posting using a hotmail adress via goggle groups.
Cross posted to both Tolkien and various Movie news groups.
So Gaza, you decided not to use the name "Lisa Morgendunst" in your
trollings anymore?
Nuki Mouse
sbe...@dowco.com
was given to Faramir in the Extended version of the To Towers movie) and
then reconsider your thesis..
Arguably, Tolkien's attitudes are colored by his generation. But even
though he was considered very old fashioned for his time, he still
created a worthy feminist icon in Eowyn. Although LOTR is steeped in the
classical romance of the warrior, Tolkien reserves his highest praise for
peacemakers. Likewise, while foreign races are allied to the Enemy,
Tolkien still found it necessary to include passages that affirm their
humanity.
LOTR is, when one decides not to be selective, a much more complex work
than those who want to use it as socio-political bludgeon realize.
Scott Bennie
Michael P. Reed
> In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
Or "Sub"elven orcs (depending upon which "theory" you believe).
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
> thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
> Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
> battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
Or, as Mr. Dunkerson has pointed out, the Haradrim (which were
described as being black (though that was not the case in the movie)
and the fact that they used war elephants and the fact that in
Tolkien's universe Harad would roughly coincide with Northern Africa,
me thinks his inspiration was Hannibal and Carthage. By no means
would have been India as it was too far east for his mythology. I
suppose the most "eastern" he went was the Tartars. IMHO, of course.
> The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
All dark skinned peoples of the world are Hindu? Hmm, I've some "dark
skinned" relatives that may wish to disagree. Otherwise, see above.
> Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
> gang?
See above.
> Why didn't Tolkien have hindu people side with white people against
> Saruman and his ork clan?
Saruman was not at the Battle of the Pelennor. He'd already lost his
at Helm's Dike with his orc loving Scots...er, Picts? :o)
> Was Tolkien saying that nonwhites are not
> to be trusted and will always be the friend of the white man's enemy?
No.
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
ville terminale
> "Conrad B Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> > "ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
> >
> > They weren't Hindu.
>
> Nor were they exactly elephants - any more than the creatures the Nazgul
> rode (referred to in movie literature as "fell beasts") were
> pterodactyls. It is *fantasy* literature after all.
>
okay, and the knights in LOR are not EXACTLY nordic aryans, and orks
are not exactly slavic slanty-eyed asiatics. not EXACTLY, but surely
you know that often fiction represents or encodes reality.
in wagner's operas, the niebelengun are not EXACTLY jews but they
certainly represented wagner's perception of the jew.
AC
I've heard this rumor they have elephants in Africa.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
AC
> In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
>
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
> thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
> Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
> battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
Why did he necessarily get the idea from India? Hannibal used them against
Rome. Despite recent proclamations by Hindu nationalists, India was not the
wellspring of civilization.
>
> The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
I didn't see the movies, so maybe your complaint should be agains Peter
Jackson. In the book they are Southrons, which would likely make them more
like Africans than anything else.
>
> Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
> gang?
Why don't you read the books?
>
> Why didn't Tolkien have hindu people side with white people against
> Saruman and his ork clan? Was Tolkien saying that nonwhites are not
> to be trusted and will always be the friend of the white man's enemy?
THEY WEREN'T HINDUS!!!
<shakes head>
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
>
>But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
>thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
>Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
>battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
>
>The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
>but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
>
>Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
>gang?
Was Hannibal a Hindu?
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm
AC
> "Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<bvmrc0$a2s$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>> "Conrad B Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> > "ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
>> >
>> > They weren't Hindu.
>>
>> Nor were they exactly elephants - any more than the creatures the Nazgul
>> rode (referred to in movie literature as "fell beasts") were
>> pterodactyls. It is *fantasy* literature after all.
>>
>
> okay, and the knights in LOR are not EXACTLY nordic aryans, and orks
> are not exactly slavic slanty-eyed asiatics. not EXACTLY, but surely
> you know that often fiction represents or encodes reality.
And often times it doesn't. The story takes place in what is essentially
the Northwest of the Old World, which you may have heard called Europe. The
Orcs are not asians, but corruptions of the Children of Illuvatar (Men and
Elves). Men, irregardless of race, are not explicitely good or bad in the
mythology.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are not familiar enough
with Tolkien's writings to make any claims.
Tell me, have you actually read LotR, and if so, when? Your first post
sounded an awful lot like you were going from the movies.
>
> in wagner's operas, the niebelengun are not EXACTLY jews but they
> certainly represented wagner's perception of the jew.
With Wagner we know very well what his opinions of Jews were.
Alexandra
a "Sauronist", wherever he came from. I thought that was kind of like
religious, no, hm... how can I put it?
Its like in those regimes that dont allow religions so all the
worshipping goes to them and takes very religious forms in a way. But
on these terms its mostly brought up by fear instead of real faith.
Hrmmpf, I am not good at explaining, hm?
Greetings,
Alex
timananda
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups:
> rec.arts.movies.past-films,rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.fan.tolkien,rec.a
> rts.books.tolkien
> Date: 3 Feb 2004 03:19:20 -0800
> Subject: Re: Was Tolkien anti-hindu?
>
And you talk like an ent.... ;-)
david
Was Tolkien anti-hindu?
Who cares?
Aris Katsaris
> "Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<bvmrc0$a2s$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
> > "Conrad B Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> > > "ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
> > >
> > > They weren't Hindu.
> >
> > Nor were they exactly elephants - any more than the creatures the Nazgul
> > rode (referred to in movie literature as "fell beasts") were
> > pterodactyls. It is *fantasy* literature after all.
>
> okay, and the knights in LOR are not EXACTLY nordic aryans,
The dark-haired knights of Dol Amroth are "nordic aryans"? I thought
that Nordics were supposed to be stereotypically blonde?
Ooh, let me guess, you haven't actually read the books, have you?
> and orks
> are not exactly slavic slanty-eyed asiatics.
> not EXACTLY, but surely
> you know that often fiction represents or encodes reality.
And oftentimes it doesn't, and oftentimes people that see so-called
"inferior races" encoded in the orcs are only displaying their own
bigotry, not Tolkien's.
Orcs and elves both "encode", if anything, parts of the human psyche
-- regardless of race or nationality.
Or haven't you heard Tolkien discussing about the orcs in both the
German and the British armies and peoples of his time? Do you think
that he was speaking about "slavic slanty-eyed asiatics| when he was
talking about the orcs native to his homeland?
Aris Katsaris
Alexandra
> And you talk like an ent.... ;-)
oumpf..... now you found out my secret.... dont tell anyone ;)
Alex
Rayvaun
orks
> are not exactly slavic slanty-eyed asiatics. not EXACTLY, but surely
> you know that often fiction represents or encodes reality.
Whoa... I'm Slavic yet I don't feel the slightest bit Orcish.... Well OK I
have my moments but that's because we were playing Ugluk captures Celebrian,
but we only did that once!
-Ray-
AC
I do. It's a ridiculous accusation that comes from a foolish premise. Even
the "Tolkien didn't like Africans" accusation makes more sense than this
one.
Chelsea Christenson
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
Be serious. Everyone knows elephants are wiccans.
ville terminale
Subsaharan Africa, which was outside most of what was then known as
the civilized world.
Tony Spadaro
I think they got the idea from reading all the inane crap that floats
around this forum. They looked at it and said to themselves - here's a
chance to use up all the sh-tuff we have leftover from Star Wars - the crap
even Lucas wouldn't buy. With a collection of morons like this to promote
the film for us we can throw in anythign and still make money.
"ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
> In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
>
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
> thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
> Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
> battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
>
> The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
>
> Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
> gang?
>
Bruce Tucker
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote
African elephants as we know them today were not used in warfare - they
are too wild to be domesticated and certainly too wild to be
controllable in battle.
However there was a subspecies of elephants, now extinct, living north
of the Sahara in antiquity which were actually smaller and more docile
than modern Indian elephants, and these were almost certainly the
elephants that Hannibal brought to Italy. They were also used in the
armies of Ptolemaic Egypt. The larger and more warlike Indian elephants
were used by the Seleucid kingdom of Syria, among others, as well as in
India itself of course. Ancient sources confirm the contrast between
"African" and Indian elephants used in warfare during the Hellenistic
Age. I'll cite some references if you really insist, but I'd rather not
go to the bother unless you want to be a pain about it.
What exactly Hannibal's racial makeup was is hard to say (and
controversial) - Carthage was originally a Phoenician colony, and was
still culturally Punic, but it had existed among North African Berbers
for about 600 years by the time Hannibal invaded Italy, and how much
interbreeding had taken place is anybody's guess. Furthermore, Hannibal
was raised in Carthage but spent decades before the war in his family
estates in Spain, which is where the bulk of his army was raised, so
most of his troops wouldn't have even been Semitic Phoenicians or
dark-skinned Berbers but light-skinned Celtiberians or even
lighter-skinned Gauls (who hated Rome almost as much as he did)
recruited along the way.
Hannibal's religion is known beyond a doubt - his family were devout
practitioners of the Carthaginian polytheistic religion, the chief god
and goddess worshipped being Baal Hammon and Tanit (Astarte). Human
sacrifice was a frequent practice in this cult - modern archaeologists
have found thousands of human remains preserved in urns in the Temple of
Tanit in Punic Carthage. Hannibal's name meant "Favored by Baal" and
according to legend, his father led him and his brother Hasdrubal as
young boys to swear sacred oaths on the altar of Baal to be lifelong
blood-enemies of Rome. Neither brother ever broke this oath; both died
keeping it.
So if Tolkien got his inspiration for Oliphaunts from Hannibal - which,
given his education, is likely - and their presence in the villain's
army indicates historical prejudice, it means he was an
anti-human-sacrificing-Baal-worshipping-Phoenicio-Berber-Celtiberio-Gaul
lite! The rascal!
Isn't this fun?
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Punic wars geek
zbihniew kubilai khan
orcs, trolls, some mixed races and humans who are allies of Sauron
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
eh? you these mumaks (oliphants)? an african elephant is more to mumak
with its size but still not as big as them :D russian mammoths still
weren't that big
> If there's such a
> thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
> Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
> battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
or maybe from Hannibal's attack on Rome? (although most of his elephants
went very dead ere they achieved rome)
> The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
or papuanese or gypsy... ;)
the haradrim were humans indeed.
> Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
> gang?
why did Hannibal employ orcs against Rome?
> Why didn't Tolkien have hindu people side with white people against
> Saruman and his ork clan? Was Tolkien saying that nonwhites are not
> to be trusted and will always be the friend of the white man's enemy?
huh?
--
zbihniew
ICQ# 340170009
email: zbihniew[at]yahoo[dot]no
news://zbihniewnews.zapto.org
Lincoln Spector
> given his education, is likely - and their presence in the villain's
> army indicates historical prejudice, it means he was an
> anti-human-sacrificing-Baal-worshipping-Phoenicio-Berber-Celtiberio-Gaul
> lite! The rascal!
he also had a prejudice about).
And his love of hobbits (who, although supposedly simple, appear to be the
most technologically advanced race in Middle Earth--they even have buttons)
suggests a clear prejudice against tall people.
And lets not forget that his entire life's work is a clear insult to anyone
lacking the patience to read long works of fiction.
Lincoln
ville terminale
You've completely sold me on the idea, plus giving me a first rate
historical lesson. Are a history professor? Much thanks.
Tar-Elenion
says...
And then Elladan and Elrohir killed Ugluk and rescued you?
--
Tar-Elenion
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Mairiel
> are not exactly slavic slanty-eyed asiatics.
You'd be hard pressed to find a slanty-eyed Slav. ;) My mama's Polish so
I should know. The only ones you Do get are genetic throwbacks to 13th
century Mongol invasions of Europe (or Tartars)
Also consider - Tolkien built a fantasy world. He was trying to create a
mythology for England. Now he was most likely to base it on what he knew
which is Anglo-saxon and Nordic beliefs. That also works for the placing.
Frankly the worst thing that can be said about LOTR and hindus or russians
or the maori is that it'd be difficult to fine their equivalents in the
book. But I don't think he was trying to recreate our world in a fantasy
setting
Bernie
> ville terminale wrote:
>
> > But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
>
> Be serious. Everyone knows elephants are wiccans.
Not to mention, vegans.
Caeruleo
termin...@hotmail.com (ville terminale) wrote:
> In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
>
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
> thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
> Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
> battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
>
> The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
> but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
>
> Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
> gang?
He didn't have any Hindus in the book at all. You appear to be going by
the appearance of these people in the movie. That isn't precisely
"Tolkien" you're seeing in that battle. ;-)
Hitman of Las Vegas
terminale) wrote:
>But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
There are no Hindus in the Lord of the Rings books.
>If there's such a
>thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
>Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
>battle;
More surely he got the idea from Hannibal, whose use of elephants is
widely known.
>Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
Thanks for the news flash.
AC
Since LotR would have occured thousands of years before the Indo-Europeans
moved into the Indian Subcontinent, I'd say its reasonable to say that,
within the imaginary timeline, Hindus did not exist yet.
Turby
<disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>... Ancient sources confirm the contrast between
>"African" and Indian elephants used in warfare during the Hellenistic
>Age. I'll cite some references if you really insist, but I'd rather not
>go to the bother unless you want to be a pain about it.
Aw, c'mon. Please? Pretty please? We insist.
Turby the Turbosurfer
Hasmonean Tazmanian
I heard this rumour that they once had pygmy elephants in Italy, before
the ice ages ended.
"Hobbits."
Hasan
Hasmonean Tazmanian
Bruce Tucker wrote:
> "ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote
>>
>>>On 2 Feb 2004 18:13:37 -0800,
>>>ville terminale <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Hmm, you're right. Where did Hannibal get his elephants?
>>>
>>>I've heard this rumor they have elephants in Africa.
>>
>>Subsaharan Africa, which was outside most of what was then known as
>>the civilized world.
>
>
> African elephants as we know them today were not used in warfare - they
> are too wild to be domesticated and certainly too wild to be
> controllable in battle.
>
> However there was a subspecies of elephants, now extinct, living north
> of the Sahara in antiquity which were actually smaller and more docile
> than modern Indian elephants, and these were almost certainly the
> elephants that Hannibal brought to Italy. They were also used in the
> armies of Ptolemaic Egypt. The larger and more warlike Indian elephants
> were used by the Seleucid kingdom of Syria, among others, as well as in
> India itself of course. Ancient sources confirm the contrast between
> "African" and Indian elephants used in warfare during the Hellenistic
> Age. I'll cite some references if you really insist, but I'd rather not
> go to the bother unless you want to be a pain about it.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant
"The elephant's military successes spread across the world and soon,
Carthaginians and the Egyptians started to tame African elephants for
the same purposes. Later on, the Numidians used the Forest elephant for
this purpose"
Forest elephant? I never heard of that before, it's almos as exotic as,
say, wood elves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_elephant
Apparently forest elephants have round ears, but savannah elephants have
pointed ears. Superficially they seem to resemble elves.!
They were "domesticated" in Pakistan 4000 years ago (if you know how
they domesticate animals, they torture them) ... sounds like the
practise of torturing elves to make orcs. The biggest problem with
using elephants in battle was their tendency to go beserk and trample
their own side to pieces. Sounds like orc-tactics to me too.
The conclusion one is led to is that ... LOTR's races are an allegory
for all the elephant species.
> What exactly Hannibal's racial makeup was is hard to say (and
> controversial) - Carthage was originally a Phoenician colony, and was
> still culturally Punic, but it had existed among North African Berbers
> for about 600 years by the time Hannibal invaded Italy, and how much
> interbreeding had taken place is anybody's guess. Furthermore, Hannibal
> was raised in Carthage but spent decades before the war in his family
> estates in Spain, which is where the bulk of his army was raised, so
> most of his troops wouldn't have even been Semitic Phoenicians or
> dark-skinned Berbers but light-skinned Celtiberians or even
> lighter-skinned Gauls (who hated Rome almost as much as he did)
> recruited along the way.
Hannibal was said to be a Semetic hero, apparently.
>
> So if Tolkien got his inspiration for Oliphaunts from Hannibal - which,
> given his education, is likely - and their presence in the villain's
> army indicates historical prejudice, it means he was an
> anti-human-sacrificing-Baal-worshipping-Phoenicio-Berber-Celtiberio-Gaul
> lite! The rascal!
>
The only elephant the Norse probably saw (vide Sam seeing his first
Oliphaunt) was the one Charlemagne was given as a gift by Harun al
Rashid. This elephant was a symbol of peace and brotherhood, but not war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul-Abbas
> Isn't this fun?
>
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<Yt0Ub.131858$ef.2...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Hasmonean
Tazmanian <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
what is the charging speed of italian and african elephants
Odysseus
>
> You'd be hard pressed to find a slanty-eyed Slav. ;) My mama's Polish so
> I should know. The only ones you Do get are genetic throwbacks to 13th
> century Mongol invasions of Europe (or Tartars)
>
for Mongolian or Tibetan. There's quite a bit of Tatar blood in the
Cossacks' background as well IIANM.
--
Odysseus
Doktor Schadenfreude
news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com:
> In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
>
> But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army?
AT-AT's hadn't been invented in Tolkien's day, nor snowspeeders.
Don't recall Hindus being mentioned either.
/sarcasm
--
Der Artzt ist in...
Geld zuerst
Behandlung zweite
Doktor Schadenfreude
anges) astounded us with:
news:mair_fheal-03...@c101.ppp.tsoft.com:
Depends on how much credit is on your Gold Visa card
Doktor Schadenfreude
news:401f39e9...@news.saix.net:
> On 2 Feb 2004 15:43:36 -0800, termin...@hotmail.com (ville terminale)
> wrote:
>
>>In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
>>
>>But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
>>thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
>>Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
>>battle; Alexander was the aggressor, by the way.
>>
>>The warriors manning the elephants don't look like orks but humans,
>>but darkskinned humans, or hindus.
>>
>>Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
>>gang?
>
> Was Hannibal a Hindu?
>
>
No, he was a cannibal. Oops, sorry....
Robert J. Kolker
ville terminale wrote:
> Why didn't Tolkien have hindu people side with white people against
> Saruman and his ork clan? Was Tolkien saying that nonwhites are not
> to be trusted and will always be the friend of the white man's enemy?
You are reading things into the story that were never there.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Bruce Tucker wrote:
> Nor were they exactly elephants
The "oiliphants" in LOTR looked more like the now extinct mammouths.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
ville terminale wrote:
>
> Hmm, you're right. Where did Hannibal get his elephants?
Hannibal Barkas used the African variety of Elephant.
Bob Kolker
Jeen Broekstra
Why do you say that? Because they are described to be bigger?
Mammoths were no bigger than modern-day elephants. Just shaggier :)
Jeen
--
Jeen Broekstra http://www.cs.vu.nl/~jbroeks/
It's like deja vu all over again.
-- Yogi Berra
ville terminale
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> > Bruce Tucker wrote:
> >
> > > Nor were they exactly elephants
> >
> > The "oiliphants" in LOTR looked more like the now extinct mammouths.
>
> Why do you say that? Because they are described to be bigger?
> Mammoths were no bigger than modern-day elephants. Just shaggier :)
>
> Jeen
mammoths were easily twice the size of the biggest modern day elephant
ville terminale
actually more like mastadons.
AC
And since I don't recall anyone in India riding mammoths or mastadons, I
guess that little theory can be laid to rest.
Christopher Kreuzer
[lots of wiki quotes about elephants]
> Bruce Tucker wrote:
>> Isn't this fun?
I feel sick. I just read the bit about execution by elephant.
Hasmonean Tazmanian
Wow, the above link also has a quote about Elephants of "terror":
"The British maintained the richest source of documentation during their
long rule of India. Records show that the British continued using
execution by elephant well into the twentieth century, partly as an
instrument of terror, and partly because it was their practice to
maintain local customs and methods wherever possible."
Of course the Israelis would probably say that the people who threw
stones at the terror elephants, were the REAL terrorists. The Israelis
are being more like Akbar though, in that they both punish even minor
violations of the law by simple people, with big, heavy handed
punishments (Akbar with his elephants, Israel with her tanks.)
Until now the weirdest form of torture I had read about (in a book on
torture) was rubbing chilli in a persons rectum, practised in Bombay,
more than 100 years ago.
Hasan
Nuki Mouse
"AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc22o50.1f4....@namibia.tandem...
> On 4 Feb 2004 10:32:30 -0800,
> ville terminale <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<bvr113$vmm8d$2...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >> Bruce Tucker wrote:
> >>
> >> > Nor were they exactly elephants
> >>
> >> The "oiliphants" in LOTR looked more like the now extinct mammouths.
> >>
> >> Bob Kolker
> >
> >
> > actually more like mastadons.
>
> And since I don't recall anyone in India riding mammoths or mastadons, I
> guess that little theory can be laid to rest.
Nor can I remember any Hindi ever riding Mumakai/oliphants, so what's your
point?
Are your saying it is impossible for Tolkien to base his creations on a
mammoth or mastodon if he wanted to?
Just like there ARE no Hindi or pseudo-Hindi in LotR.
--
"This is just my opinion, I maybe wrong" D. Miller
"Defend free speech! Read a banned book today!" unknown.
"I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with
my Life" Voltaire
Nuki_Mouse
Bruce Tucker
> Since LotR would have occured thousands of years before the
Indo-Europeans
> moved into the Indian Subcontinent, I'd say its reasonable to say
that,
> within the imaginary timeline, Hindus did not exist yet.
You have put your foot in it!
(By which I mean that your statement hinges on a point which is
*extremely* controversial in some circles, namely, that Hinduism has its
earliest origins as a cultural import to India brought by Indo-European
invaders, rather than being a native Indian development which only
picked up some terminology, a language, and perhaps a change here and
there from the newcomers. Better just to say "It's a fantasy having
nothing to do with Hindus" and leave it at that, I think.)
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
zett
[very educational post regretfully snipped]
A most informative post. Very readable as well. And, it appears you
have won over the OP -which almost never happens when the topic is
even slightly controversial- BRAVO!
Peter H
>In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
>
>But, what about the attacking hindu elephant army? If there's such a
>thing in the book, Tolkien surely got the idea from Alexander the
>Great's clashes with the kingdoms in India which used elephants in
>battle;
>
Unless of course he was thinking of Hannibal's little hike over the Alps
complete with elephants.
And trying to make a fictional story's plot elements in to statements of
the author's political leanings is, was and always will be a buch of bosh.
Pete H
Peter H
>snipped
>
It doesn't seem that anyone in this thread has yet pointed out that
"Haradrim" is (or can be seen as) a semitic plural. Are you going to
mistakenly argue from that that Tolkien was . . . .
Pete H
--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero
D.C. Eaton
For people who have been arguing endlessly about Peter Jackson's
interpretation of LOTR since 2001, we highly recommend the book "Letters
of J.R.R. Tolkien".
Tolkien wrote empassioned letters to his son Christopher all through WW2
decrying the need for war. There are also detailed descriptions of the
trials and tribulations of writing LOTR, political and theological
speculations, and memories of his youth in South Africa and England.
In Letter #210, written to "Famous Monsters of Filmland" editor Forrest J
Ackerman(!), Tolkien lays down all his thoughts about a proposed animated
version of the books, and film versions in general. It's fascinating.
I can't imagine anyone "interpreting" LOTR - including Jackson, Philippa
Boyens or Fran Walsh - until they'd read this book.
Dean
Doug McDonald
>
> In Letter #210, written to "Famous Monsters of Filmland" editor Forrest J
> Ackerman(!), Tolkien lays down all his thoughts about a proposed animated
> version of the books, and film versions in general. It's fascinating.
>
> I can't imagine anyone "interpreting" LOTR - including Jackson, Philippa
> Boyens or Fran Walsh - until they'd read this book.
>
Well, the next to last paragraph ends with "let the Ents look to it"
... it being the end of Saruman. Jackson apparently liked that.
Doug MCDonald
Conrad B Dunkerson
news:KgLUb.12511$jH6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I can't imagine anyone "interpreting" LOTR - including Jackson,
> Philippa
> Boyens or Fran Walsh - until they'd read this book.
Heh... I'm actually fairly certain that they didn't. They certainly never
referred to Letters in any of their explanations of how they went about
making the movies.
Bruce Tucker
Hah! Thought I'd forgot you, didja?
Hans Delbruck wrote the groundbreaking analysis of classical warfare,
_Warfare in Antiquity_ around 100 years ago and discussed elephant
warfare in some detail, including both Alexander on the Hydaspes and
Hannibal at Zama (where he had far more elephants than he ever had in
Italy). The best ancient sources he cited were Arrian and Plutarch for
Alexander and Polybius and Livy for Hannibal. Livy's _The War with
Hannibal_ is essential reading.
Polybius also wrote an account of the battle of Raphia in 217 B.C.
between Ptolemy IV of Egypt and Antiochus III of Syria in which he
discussed the difference between (North) African and Indian elephants
(175 took part in the battle, between both armies!) and the superiority
in size and ferocity of the latter. (Delbruck discounts this, but he was
unaware of the smaller African subspecies and wrongly assumed that
"African" elephants must mean the larger subSaharan or bush elephants.)
Other secondary sources would include BH Liddell hart's biography of
Scipio Africanus and another book which I haven't had the pleasure of
reading but have seen cited in a couple of places, H.H. Scullard's _The
Elephant in the Greek and Roman World_. (From what I can tell, Scullard
says there was never an additional, extinct species of North African
elephant, but instead the ancient sources must refer to the forest or
pygmy subspecies of African elephant which is still found today, and
which is indeed smaller than the more well-known bush elephant of
Africa.)
Always glad to be of service :-)
Now, anyone up for a rousing game of SPQR?
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Öjevind Lång
news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
> In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
> Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
> gang?
It's spelled *Orc*. You have clearly not read the books, so don't drag
Tolkien into this.
Öjevind
Tar-Elenion
dnivej...@swipnet.se says...
"Orc. This is supposed to be the Common Speech name of these creatures at
that time; it should therefore according to the system be translated into
English, or the language of translation. ...
It should be spelt ork (so the Dutch translation) in a Germanic language,
but I had used the spelling orc in so many places that I have hesitated
to change it in the English text, though the adjective is necessarily
spelt orkish. The Grey-elven form is orch, plural yrch."
Guide to Names in LotR
"The Elves from their earliest times invented and used a word or words
with a base (o)rok to denote anything that caused fear and/or horror. It
would originally have been applied to 'phan負oms' (spirits assuming
visible forms) as well as to any independ苟ntly existing creatures. Its
application (in all Elvish tongues) specifically to the creatures called
Orks - so I shall spell it in The Silmarillion - was later."
Morgoth's Ring
--
Tar-Elenion
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip interesting quotes of historical sources>
> Now, anyone up for a rousing game of SPQR?
Senatus Populus Que Romanus?
Syndicat de la Presse Quotidienne Regionale?
Small Profit, Quick Return?
Count Menelvagor
> I think he was anti-orc, so much so that he confused orcs and goblins (who
> he also had a prejudice about).
>
> And his love of hobbits (who, although supposedly simple, appear to be the
> most technologically advanced race in Middle Earth--they even have buttons)
> suggests a clear prejudice against tall people.
>
> And lets not forget that his entire life's work is a clear insult to anyone
> lacking the patience to read long works of fiction.
Tolkien's anti-Orc, anti-Troll, anti-Balrog, and pro-Elvish biasses
are detestable. His entire work is a farrago of LIES.
*And* he ate mushrooms. How could he have such appalling tastes?
Turby
<disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Turby" <turbo...@beach.comber> wrote
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:46:53 -0500, "Bruce Tucker"
>> <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >... Ancient sources confirm the contrast between
>> >"African" and Indian elephants used in warfare during the Hellenistic
>> >Age. I'll cite some references if you really insist, but I'd rather
>not
>> >go to the bother unless you want to be a pain about it.
>>
>> Aw, c'mon. Please? Pretty please? We insist.
>
>Hah! Thought I'd forgot you, didja?
Nah. Good things, watched pots, and virtues, ya know?
>Hans Delbruck
>Arrian and Plutarch
>Polybius and Livy
>BH Liddell hart
>H.H. Scullard
>Always glad to be of service :-)
Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar and I genuflect in your general
direction.
>Now, anyone up for a rousing game of SPQR?
My Centurian accosts your virgin in the marketplace.
Turby the Turbosurfer
Peter H
>*And* he ate mushrooms. How could he have such appalling tastes?
>
>
De gustibus non disputandem est.
Nikkou
> In article <M2WUb.8152$zm5....@nntpserver.swip.net>,
> dnivej...@swipnet.se says...
> > "ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:d8e25435.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > > In LOR movies, humans do battle with subhuman orks.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Why did Tolkien decide to have hindus side with Saruman and his ork
> > > gang?
> >
> > It's spelled *Orc*. You have clearly not read the books, so don't drag
> > Tolkien into this.
>
> "Orc. This is supposed to be the Common Speech name of these creatures at
> that time; it should therefore according to the system be translated into
> English, or the language of translation. ...
> It should be spelt ork (so the Dutch translation) in a Germanic language,
> but I had used the spelling orc in so many places that I have hesitated
> to change it in the English text, though the adjective is necessarily
> spelt orkish. The Grey-elven form is orch, plural yrch."
> Guide to Names in LotR
>
> "The Elves from their earliest times invented and used a word or words
> with a base (o)rok to denote anything that caused fear and/or horror. It
> would originally have been applied to 'phantoms' (spirits assuming
> visible forms) as well as to any independently existing creatures. Its
> application (in all Elvish tongues) specifically to the creatures called
> Orks - so I shall spell it in The Silmarillion - was later."
> Morgoth's Ring
After perusing several of the OP's messages, I too doubt he'd delved
much into Tolkien's works. It may be that his use of 'ork' comes from
natural inherent knowledge.
--
Nikkou <nik...@mail.com>
Diverse Musings: http://reimeika.ca/nikkou/
"Blueberries, raspberries and french vanilla cream."
Dogger the Filmgoblin
> ville terminale wrote:
>
> >snipped
> >
> It doesn't seem that anyone in this thread has yet pointed out that
> "Haradrim" is (or can be seen as) a semitic plural. Are you going to
> mistakenly argue from that that Tolkien was . . . .
So was Galadhrim, which the name for Galadriel's people. And Rohirrim.
And many many other collective plurals. So if someone ever mistakenly
argued that they would be doubly mistaken.
DB.
Jesse Mazer
ville terminale wrote:
Why do you say that? Not all mammoths were woolly, you know. Mastodons were smaller than the largest mammoths--see
http://www.prin.edu/mammoth/mammothfacts.htm for size and weight estimates. The biggest mammoths were only about
one and a half times the height of african elephants, but those oliphaunts looked like they were bigger than even
the largest dinosaurs, its probably physically impossible that animals that big could support their weight on land.
Jesse