info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Siege of Gondor
82 views
Skip to first unread message
Thomas Koenig
Jan 16, 2021, 2:45:00 PM1/16/21
to
Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
There is also an eight-part text about the battle of Helm's
Klamm, that's next up for me.
Michael Ikeda
Jan 16, 2021, 8:38:09 PM1/16/21
to
Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote in news:rtvfnr$oj1$1
@newsreader4.netcologne.de:
> Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
>
> https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
>
> Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
> tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter Jackson’s
Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
one of the most successful adaptations in film history. Many of the
film’s shortcomings in portraying a sense of battlefield realism
have more to do with the constrains of the medium. Film is an
incredible powerful medium, after all, but also a very limited one.
Time is very limited and everything in a film must be compressed.
Given those limitations, Jackson’s effort is nothing short of
marvelous, even if it doesn’t always capture the depth and nuance
of the books."
@newsreader4.netcologne.de:
> Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
>
> https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
>
> Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
> tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
actually presented in the linked series.
From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter Jackson’s
Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
one of the most successful adaptations in film history. Many of the
film’s shortcomings in portraying a sense of battlefield realism
have more to do with the constrains of the medium. Film is an
incredible powerful medium, after all, but also a very limited one.
Time is very limited and everything in a film must be compressed.
Given those limitations, Jackson’s effort is nothing short of
marvelous, even if it doesn’t always capture the depth and nuance
of the books."
Thomas Koenig
Jan 17, 2021, 9:43:38 AM1/17/21
to
Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> schrieb:
warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.
> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote in news:rtvfnr$oj1$1
> @newsreader4.netcologne.de:
>
>> Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
>>
>> https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
>>
>> Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
>> tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
>
> This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
> actually presented in the linked series.
> From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter Jackson’s
> Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
> one of the most successful adaptations in film history.
Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion isn't
> @newsreader4.netcologne.de:
>
>> Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of Gondor.
>>
>> https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
>>
>> Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
>> tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
>
> This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
> actually presented in the linked series.
> From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter Jackson’s
> Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most difficult and
> one of the most successful adaptations in film history.
warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.
Stan Brown
Jan 17, 2021, 11:45:54 AM1/17/21
to
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 01:38:07 GMT, Michael Ikeda wrote:
> From the conclusion: "...
> marvelous, even if it doesn?t always capture the depth and nuance
> of the books."
That "time is limited" is always trotted out by Jackson defenders,
but it misses the point. If time is so limited, so that he had to
leave out some things, no one can argue with that. But then why did
he ADD so much of his own?
"Doesn't capture the depth and nuance" -- that's putting it mildly.
Thank goodness he doesn't have the rights to /The Silmarillion/! I
shudder to think of Yavanna and Ungoliant in a slugfest after the
killing of the Trees, or Manwė sending winds to blow Orc soldiers
miles over the plain of Ard-Galen.
--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
https://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ: https://preview.tinyurl.com/pr6sa7u
FAQ of the Rings: https://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
> From the conclusion: "...
> Time is very limited and everything in a film must be compressed.
> Given those limitations, Jackson?s effort is nothing short of
> marvelous, even if it doesn?t always capture the depth and nuance
> of the books."
That "time is limited" is always trotted out by Jackson defenders,
but it misses the point. If time is so limited, so that he had to
leave out some things, no one can argue with that. But then why did
he ADD so much of his own?
"Doesn't capture the depth and nuance" -- that's putting it mildly.
Thank goodness he doesn't have the rights to /The Silmarillion/! I
shudder to think of Yavanna and Ungoliant in a slugfest after the
killing of the Trees, or Manwė sending winds to blow Orc soldiers
miles over the plain of Ard-Galen.
--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
https://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ: https://preview.tinyurl.com/pr6sa7u
FAQ of the Rings: https://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
Paul S Person
Jan 17, 2021, 12:02:04 PM1/17/21
to
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 01:38:07 GMT, Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com>
wrote:
As to "marvelous", I don't recall any Green Slime in the book, and I
don't think it really worked in the film.
But I will agree that the battle scenes, however evaluated, are /not/
the reason the films fail to tell the same story as the book. For
that, PJ is entitled to full credit.
And I don't want to hear anything about the scriptwriters.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
wrote:
don't think it really worked in the film.
But I will agree that the battle scenes, however evaluated, are /not/
the reason the films fail to tell the same story as the book. For
that, PJ is entitled to full credit.
And I don't want to hear anything about the scriptwriters.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Michael Ikeda
Jan 20, 2021, 9:35:24 AM1/20/21
to
Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote in
news:ru1iep$8u2$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de:
> Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> schrieb:
>> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote in
>> news:rtvfnr$oj1$1 @newsreader4.netcologne.de:
>>
>>> Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of
>>> Gondor.
>>>
>>> https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
>>>
>>> Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
>>> tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
>>
>> This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
>> actually presented in the linked series.
>
>> From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
>> difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
>> history.
>
> Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion
> isn't warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.
>
Bret Devereaux (the author of acoup.blog) seems to have worried that
>> history.
>
> Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion
> isn't warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.
>
the Siege of Gondor webpages might be read as being overly harsh on
the movies. The sentence just before the part I quoted is:
(begin quote) I worry that the temptation will be to reduce my
analysis to “book good, movie bad.” (end quote)
He again notes his overall approval of the movies in the Conclusions
section of the last of the Helm's Deep pages.
"When I discussed the Siege of Gondor, I ended the series by noting
that, for all of the flaws of Peter Jackson’s adaptation, I still
found it one of the most successful book adaptations in film history,
and easily the best fantasy adaptation. In part, this was because
while Jackson had missed many of the details, he had managed to
capture some of the more fundamental themes of the work; he managed
to grasp the spirit of Tolkien, even if he occasionally missed the
letter.
I have much the same verdict here."
Glenn Holliday
Jan 20, 2021, 9:52:15 PM1/20/21
to
On 1/17/2021 11:45 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> Thank goodness he doesn't have the rights to /The Silmarillion/! I
> shudder to think of Yavanna and Ungoliant in a slugfest after the
> killing of the Trees, or Manwë sending winds to blow Orc soldiers
> Thank goodness he doesn't have the rights to /The Silmarillion/! I
> shudder to think of Yavanna and Ungoliant in a slugfest after the
> miles over the plain of Ard-Galen.
It sounds like Jackson was a consultant during development of
Amazon's Second Age series. But he is not involved in the
production.
--
Glenn Holliday holl...@acm.org
tenworld
Jan 30, 2021, 3:15:50 PM1/30/21
to
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:35:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Ikeda wrote:
...
the movie deleted much of the boring boilerplate typical of Clancy and stayed true to the book.
The only significant character change I can think of was making Jack an Annapolis grad
which actually works better.
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?
...
> >> From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
> >> JacksonĀ’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
> >> difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
> >> history.
> >
I have always considered The Hunt For Red October to be the best adaptation since
> >> JacksonĀ’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
> >> difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
> >> history.
> >
the movie deleted much of the boring boilerplate typical of Clancy and stayed true to the book.
The only significant character change I can think of was making Jack an Annapolis grad
which actually works better.
I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
close. But that river of molten gold?
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 30, 2021, 3:38:35 PM1/30/21
to
On 30/01/2021 14.15, tenworld wrote:
> I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
> too much by making a trilogy out of a novella.
Like scraping butter over too much bread?
> I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
> too much by making a trilogy out of a novella.
> I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
> was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
> close.
members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
(Of course, Sam will kill him if he tries anything.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
87.3% of all statistics are made up by the person giving them.
Thomas Koenig
Jan 31, 2021, 4:38:09 AM1/31/21
to
Michael F. Stemper <mste...@gmail.com> schrieb:
> Like scraping butter over too much bread?
:-)
> I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
> members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
> (Of course, Sam will kill him if he tries anything.)
Sam will kill whom if he tries what?
> Like scraping butter over too much bread?
> I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
> members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
> (Of course, Sam will kill him if he tries anything.)
tenworld
Jan 31, 2021, 10:16:59 AM1/31/21
to
On Saturday, January 30, 2021 at 3:38:35 PM UTC-5, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 30/01/2021 14.15, tenworld wrote:
>
> > I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
> > too much by making a trilogy out of a novella.
> Like scraping butter over too much bread?
> > I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
> > was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
> > close.
> I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
> members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
>
when they are hanging around the Rohan places. and the way he takes Aragon's lead in the fellowship
> On 30/01/2021 14.15, tenworld wrote:
>
> > I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
> > too much by making a trilogy out of a novella.
> Like scraping butter over too much bread?
> > I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
> > was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
> > close.
> I never noticed Aragorn being closer to Legolas than to any of the other
> members of the Fellowship. Do you have some examples in mind?
>
even though as the son of an elven king he would have higher status
Steve Morrison
Jan 31, 2021, 10:41:52 AM1/31/21
to
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 31, 2021, 10:50:23 AM1/31/21
to
(give or take Gandalf the White) deferred to Aragorn?
--
Michael F. Stemper
I feel more like I do now than I did when I came in.
Paul S Person
Jan 31, 2021, 12:45:25 PM1/31/21
to
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:35:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Ikeda wrote:
>...
>> >> From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
>> >> Jackson?’s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
But since when did PJ care about JRRT's timeline?
wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:35:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Ikeda wrote:
>...
>> >> From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
>> >> difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
>> >> history.
>> >
>I have always considered The Hunt For Red October to be the best adaptation since
>the movie deleted much of the boring boilerplate typical of Clancy and stayed true to the book.
>The only significant character change I can think of was making Jack an Annapolis grad
>which actually works better.
>
>I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
>too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
>was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
>close. But that river of molten gold?
Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>> >> history.
>> >
>I have always considered The Hunt For Red October to be the best adaptation since
>the movie deleted much of the boring boilerplate typical of Clancy and stayed true to the book.
>The only significant character change I can think of was making Jack an Annapolis grad
>which actually works better.
>
>I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
>too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
>was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
>close. But that river of molten gold?
But since when did PJ care about JRRT's timeline?
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 31, 2021, 12:53:07 PM1/31/21
to
--
Michael F. Stemper
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
Steve Morrison
Jan 31, 2021, 4:32:31 PM1/31/21
to
on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
elephants in fantasy.
tenworld
Feb 1, 2021, 8:34:06 AM2/1/21
to
Paul S Person
Feb 1, 2021, 2:17:43 PM2/1/21
to
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
<mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
>>> too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
>>> was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
>>> close. But that river of molten gold?
>>
>> Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>
>YDRC.
So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
<mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
>>> too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
>>> was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
>>> close. But that river of molten gold?
>>
>> Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>
>YDRC.
Keeping in mind he is sixty or so in LOTR.
And how much time separates the two.
Paul S Person
Feb 1, 2021, 2:18:38 PM2/1/21
to
the bad guys they are trampling?
Michael F. Stemper
Feb 1, 2021, 4:07:01 PM2/1/21
to
On 01/02/2021 13.17, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
>>>> too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
>>>> was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
>>>> close. But that river of molten gold?
>>>
>>> Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>>
>> YDRC.
>
> So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
>>>> too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
>>>> was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
>>>> close. But that river of molten gold?
>>>
>>> Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>>
>> YDRC.
>
> So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
in T.A. 2941.
The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.
(This is all according to JRRT. If PJ has a different chronology,
please ignore.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
Why doesn't anybody care about apathy?
Paul S Person
Feb 2, 2021, 12:08:13 PM2/2/21
to
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:06:46 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
My apologies.
>(This is all according to JRRT. If PJ has a different chronology,
>please ignore.)
--
<mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 01/02/2021 13.17, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
>> <mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
>>>>> too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
>>>>> was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
>>>>> close. But that river of molten gold?
>>>>
>>>> Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>>>
>>> YDRC.
>>
>> So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
>
>Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
>The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
>in T.A. 2941.
>The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
>The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.
Apparently, I misconstrued "YDRC".
>On 01/02/2021 13.17, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
>> <mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:15:49 -0800 (PST), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I think of PJ's Hobbit as a different telling of a story (like all the Alamo versions), diluted
>>>>> too much by making a trilogy out of a novella. I did like the scene at the end where Legolas
>>>>> was sent to find a young ranger since LOTR never really explained why he and Aragon were so
>>>>> close. But that river of molten gold?
>>>>
>>>> Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>>>
>>> YDRC.
>>
>> So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
>
>Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
>The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
>in T.A. 2941.
>The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
>The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.
My apologies.
>(This is all according to JRRT. If PJ has a different chronology,
>please ignore.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
Feb 2, 2021, 1:22:50 PM2/2/21
to
On 02/02/2021 11.08, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:06:46 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2021 13.17, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
>>> <mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> YDRC.
>>>
>>> So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
>>
>> Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
>> The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
>> in T.A. 2941.
>> The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
>> The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.
>
> Apparently, I misconstrued "YDRC".
Oh. "Don't"? I guess that it is ambiguous.
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:06:46 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2021 13.17, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:52:55 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
>>> <mste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 31/01/2021 11.44, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> Aragorn was about 10 years old at that time, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> YDRC.
>>>
>>> So, how old was he at the Battle of Five Armies?
>>
>> Aragorn was born in T.A. 2931.
>> The bulk of _The Hobbit_ (basically, all except "Back Again") took place
>> in T.A. 2941.
>> The long-expected party was in T.A. 3001.
>> The Council of Elrond was in T.A. 3018.
>
> Apparently, I misconstrued "YDRC".
That never occurred to me; all the times that I've encountered it,
its meaning was quite obvious. (I obviously cannot judge my use
of it.)
> My apologies.
No problem.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28
Stan Brown
Feb 2, 2021, 7:35:06 PM2/2/21
to
was surprised to see that Bilbo was not only older than Aragorn, he
was older than Aragorn's _mother_.)
Battle of Five Armies was 2941, which agrees with your "10 years
old."
The Ring and Sauron were destroyed in T.A. 3019, when Aragorn was in
his late 80s.
Steve Morrison
Feb 3, 2021, 3:26:49 PM2/3/21
to
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 21:32:30 +0000, I wrote:
> I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
> on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
> blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
> which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
> speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
> elephants in fantasy.
Oh, I forgot to add: one of the commenters on that blog is named
> I actually did read this series a couple of months ago, after someone
> on Reddit linked to it. It's quite good, and so is the rest of the
> blog; in particular, it has a three-part series on war elephants
> which might be of interest to rabt. The final post has some
> speculations on why it always seems to be the bad guys who use war
> elephants in fantasy.
"Bill Hicklin". I wonder if that is the same William Cloud Hicklin
who used to post on rabt?
Louis Epstein
Feb 9, 2021, 9:02:43 PM2/9/21
to
Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote:
> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote in
> news:ru1iep$8u2$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de:
>
>> Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> schrieb:
>>> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote in
>>> news:rtvfnr$oj1$1 @newsreader4.netcologne.de:
>>>
>>>> Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of
>>>> Gondor.
>>>>
>>>> https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
>>>>
>>>> Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
>>>> tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
>>>
>>> This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
>>> actually presented in the linked series.
>>
>>> From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
>>> Jackson??s Lord of the Rings must stand as both one of the most
> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote in
> news:ru1iep$8u2$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de:
>
>> Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> schrieb:
>>> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote in
>>> news:rtvfnr$oj1$1 @newsreader4.netcologne.de:
>>>
>>>> Here's an excellent text (six parts) about the siege of
>>>> Gondor.
>>>>
>>>> https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/
>>>>
>>>> Tl;dr: Tolkien got medieval warfare astonishingly right, also
>>>> tempered by his WW I experiences. Jackson... not so much.
>>>
>>> This implies a harsher assessment of Jackson's film than is
>>> actually presented in the linked series.
>>
>>> From the conclusion: "But I actually think that Peter
>>> difficult and one of the most successful adaptations in film
>>> history.
>>
>> Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion
>> isn't warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.
>>
>
> Bret Devereaux (the author of acoup.blog) seems to have worried that
> the Siege of Gondor webpages might be read as being overly harsh on
> the movies. The sentence just before the part I quoted is:
>
> (begin quote) I worry that the temptation will be to reduce my
> analysis to ?book good, movie bad.? (end quote)
>>> history.
>>
>> Having read the articles themselves, I'd say the conclusion
>> isn't warranted. Difficult, yes. Successful, no.
>>
>
> Bret Devereaux (the author of acoup.blog) seems to have worried that
> the Siege of Gondor webpages might be read as being overly harsh on
> the movies. The sentence just before the part I quoted is:
>
> (begin quote) I worry that the temptation will be to reduce my
The only logical analysis.;)
> He again notes his overall approval of the movies in the Conclusions
> section of the last of the Helm's Deep pages.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Nomen Nescio
Apr 14, 2021, 10:18:42 PM4/14/21
to
guys (Carthage) used elephants, and they lost. Of course, Carthage is
defined as bad only because they lost, and Rome is defined as good
because they are the ancestors of whole Western civilization.
Steve Morrison
Apr 15, 2021, 3:18:26 PM4/15/21
to
war elephants being used by the other side. To begin with, Greek
histories had war elephants used by the Indians who Alexander fought.
Later, when war elephants were adopted by the Greeks themselves, we
see things from the Roman point of view; elephants were used against
the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to
anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.
Thomas Koenig
Apr 15, 2021, 3:51:10 PM4/15/21
to
Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> schrieb:
> Partly, yes. The blogger argues that classical sources always showed
> war elephants being used by the other side. To begin with, Greek
> histories had war elephants used by the Indians who Alexander fought.
> Later, when war elephants were adopted by the Greeks themselves, we
> see things from the Roman point of view; elephants were used against
> the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to
> anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
> saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
> people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.
All of these are examples of where the victor wrote the history
(well, except for Alexander, I guess, he didn't win long-term)
and the other side used elephants, their use does not appear to
have been a successful tactic.
> Partly, yes. The blogger argues that classical sources always showed
> war elephants being used by the other side. To begin with, Greek
> histories had war elephants used by the Indians who Alexander fought.
> Later, when war elephants were adopted by the Greeks themselves, we
> see things from the Roman point of view; elephants were used against
> the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to
> anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
> saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
> people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.
(well, except for Alexander, I guess, he didn't win long-term)
and the other side used elephants, their use does not appear to
have been a successful tactic.
Stan Brown
Apr 15, 2021, 9:35:10 PM4/15/21
to
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 19:51:09 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> schrieb:
>
> > [quoted text muted]
Seleucus and the others held themselves up as the heirs to the god
Alexander.
> Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> schrieb:
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> > the Romans, first by Pyrrhus of Epirus, then later by Hannibal. So to
> > anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
> > saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
> > people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.
>
> All of these are examples of where the victor wrote the history
> (well, except for Alexander, I guess, he didn't win long-term)
He didn't, but his successors (the Diadochi) did. Ptolemy and
> > anyone with a classical education like Tolkien's, it goes without
> > saying that war elephants are only used by the "bad guys", i.e. the
> > people whom the Greeks or the Romans fought.
>
> All of these are examples of where the victor wrote the history
> (well, except for Alexander, I guess, he didn't win long-term)
Seleucus and the others held themselves up as the heirs to the god
Alexander.
0 new messages