Moria tunnels
Kevin K
different questions (to me) came up due to the differences from
reading the book.
The description of the route in from the west door to the main part of
the Moria. It sounded pretty bad. Crevices, holes, no signage, etc.
The book talks about how, in the past, the door would probably have
been left open. So I would have thought it was travelled fairly
frequently. But instead, it almost sounded like an Oklahoma highway
:) But without being exposed to the summer heat and winter cold.
No mention about it being a "living" cave, so I wouldn't have thought
there would be much weathering.
Now, the main bridge where Gandalf was lost was mentioned. So, if
there had been bridges along the way, but destroyed, why didn't they
mention the ruins? They mentioned the cover on the well in the watch
room being broken.
Another issue. I got the impression that Gandalf may have travelled
along some of these tunnels in the past, others, he had to detemrine
by logic or feeling which ways to go. I wonder what reason he would
have ever had to come in from a normal entrance, and make it at least
partially along the route, since he apparently never came in the
Hollin door.
Dirk Thierbach
> Now, the main bridge where Gandalf was lost was mentioned. So, if
> there had been bridges along the way, but destroyed, why didn't they
> mention the ruins? They mentioned the cover on the well in the watch
> room being broken.
I am not sure what you mean here. Gandalf is lost at an intersection
of several paths:
: [...] when Gandalf came to his first serious check. Before him stood
: a wide dark arch opening into three passages: all led in the same
: general direction, eastwards; but the left-hand passage plunged
: down, while the right-hand climbed up, and the middle way seemed to
: run on, smooth and level but very narrow.
That is where the watch room is. There's no bridge mentioned, neither
in this place nor before.
The only bridge that is mentioned is the main bridge much later
on, after the fight in the chamber of Mazarbul, when the party is
leaving the passage they took from that chamber. Then Gandalf
*remembers* where he is (so that cannot be what you mean, either):
: But I know now where we are: we have reached the First Deep, the
: level immediately below the Gates. This is the Second Hall of Old
: Moria; and the Gates are near: away beyond the eastern end, on the
: left, not more than a quarter of a mile. Across the Bridge, up a
: broad stair, along a wide road through the First Hall, and out!
So the first bridge they see on their way is the main bridge (where
Gandalf then fights the Balrog). No other bridge before, no need to
mention any ruins that are not there :-)
> Another issue. I got the impression that Gandalf may have travelled
> along some of these tunnels in the past, others, he had to detemrine
> by logic or feeling which ways to go.
Or he had just forgotten what they looked like. Or he took a wrong
turn somewhere, and ended up in some part of the mines he hadn't
been before.
> I wonder what reason he would have ever had to come in from a normal
> entrance, and make it at least partially along the route, since he
> apparently never came in the Hollin door.
Well, he tells the Fellowship the reason: "Yet it will not be the
first time that I have been to Moria. I sought there long for
Thrain son of Thror after he was lost. I passed through, and I
came out again alive!". I suppose that "searching" means he had to
explore quite a bit of it, including part of the route he later
travels with the Fellowship.
- Dirk
Francis A. Miniter
> - Dirk
>
I think the OP meant "lost" in the sense of "believed to have perished", not in
the sense of "not knowing which way to go".
Francis A. Miniter
Kevin K
<min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote:
>
> I think the OP meant "lost" in the sense of "believed to have perished", not in
> the sense of "not knowing which way to go".
>
Correct.
--
Kevin K
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
The lack of a mention of earlier bridges was partially my point.
Having to jump a 6 or 7 foot crevice doesn't seem like a well laid
path.
--
Francis A. Miniter
> Listening to the FOTR (audio book) for the first time, and some
> different questions (to me) came up due to the differences from
> reading the book.
>
> The description of the route in from the west door to the main part of
> the Moria. It sounded pretty bad. Crevices, holes, no signage, etc.
>
> The book talks about how, in the past, the door would probably have
> been left open. So I would have thought it was travelled fairly
> frequently. But instead, it almost sounded like an Oklahoma highway
> :) But without being exposed to the summer heat and winter cold.
>
> No mention about it being a "living" cave, so I wouldn't have thought
> there would be much weathering.
>
> Now, the main bridge where Gandalf was lost was mentioned. So, if
> there had been bridges along the way, but destroyed, why didn't they
> mention the ruins? They mentioned the cover on the well in the watch
> room being broken.
A prime rule of writing is never to mentioned superfluous things. If a crystal
ball is mentioned on a desk, there is a good chance it will become a murder
weapon or somehow important. Besides, Tolkien was not writing a travelogue of
Moria. If he had gone on in detail about the levels and passageways and
bridges, his editors would have screamed. Such diversionary detail would have
detracted from the force of the plot.
As to the broken cover on the well, that was important. Pippin has to drop
something into the well and make a noise, so that the orcs can become aware of
their presence.
>
> Another issue. I got the impression that Gandalf may have travelled
> along some of these tunnels in the past, others, he had to detemrine
> by logic or feeling which ways to go. I wonder what reason he would
> have ever had to come in from a normal entrance, and make it at least
> partially along the route, since he apparently never came in the
> Hollin door.
See Dirk's reply.
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
Now I think I see what you were talking about. The eastern end of Moria is
protected by the "main bridge" over an immensely deep natural chasm. Armies can
be held at bay here. The western end was protected by the watcher in the pool
and by the "magic" gates that will only open to someone who says the word
"friend". [I wonder if they have to mean it?] With the gate closed, it would
be difficult to attack there. Presumably, this was the passage through which
the orcs gained entry originally. Presumably, there were no enormous chasms on
that side of the mountain.
I further take it that the steps that they climb or descend were damaged not
worn, and that the damage probably came in the battle that caused the fall of
Moria. Remember, the journal they eventually find indicates that the Balrog was
awakened. It probably caused enough of the damage by itself with huge mass and
its fiery whip. And, too, there were cave trolls in Moria that had the strength
to break rock in a battle.
Francis A. Miniter
Emma Pease
But which fall. I've always assumed that much of the damage on the
eastern side was from the first fall of Moria much earlier in the
third age. Note that Gandalf doesn't say that the damage has
increased much since his last visit (which he probably should have
mentioned if it had).
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Stan Brown
<min...@attglobalZZ.net>:
> A prime rule of writing is never to mentioned superfluous things.
> If a crystal ball is mentioned on a desk, there is a good chance it
> will become a murder weapon or somehow important.
Not necessarily.
For instance, in mystery writing the prime rule is never to leave
something out that would let the reader solve the mystery, but put in
plenty of misdirection.
Now, LotR is not a mystery, but there is *plenty* that is there not
because it advances the story but because it is beautiful or
interesting.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Dirk Thierbach
> Kevin K wrote:
>> The lack of a mention of earlier bridges was partially my point.
>> Having to jump a 6 or 7 foot crevice doesn't seem like a well laid
>> path.
> I further take it that the steps that they climb or descend were
> damaged not worn, and that the damage probably came in the battle
> that caused the fall of Moria.
I also always thought that a lot was damaged since Moria was abandoned.
Look at the rest of the description:
: [...] there were also in many places holes and pitfalls, and dark
: wells beside the path in which their passing feet echoed. There were
: fissures and chasms in the walls and floor, and every now and then a
: crack would open right before their feet.
The Tale of Years says that the dwarves fled in 1981 T.A. from Moria, and
in more than thousand years a lot can happen. Water, minor earthquakes,
tension in the stone after the dwarves dug out a substantial bit,
and so on.
And since all this damage happened after the dwarves left, one wouldn't
expect them to have built bridges etc. before :-)
But I don't think that the battle or the Balrog was the main cause:
The nature of the damage just doesn't fit this theory.
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> A prime rule of writing is never to mentioned superfluous things.
> If a crystal ball is mentioned on a desk, there is a good chance it
> will become a murder weapon or somehow important.
BTW, this always bothered me: In real life, it doesn't work this way,
and if you know that everything that is mentioned is going to be
important, it becomes far to easy to guess what is going to happen.
And Tolkien OTOH is quite good at sprinkling lots of "historical" hints
over his text that are quite superflous for the main story (like
the cats of Queen Beruthiel), but that create depth. Similar with his
landscape descriptions. (Ok, both are not descriptions of "things"
in your sense, but nevertheless).
- Dirk
JJ
On Jan 28, 1:15 am, "Francis A. Miniter" <mini...@attglobalZZ.net>
wrote:
> Kevin K wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:50:28 UTC, Dirk Thierbach
> > <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
> > The lack of a mention of earlier bridges was partially my point.
> > Having to jump a 6 or 7 foot crevice doesn't seem like a well laid
> > path. Now I think I see what you were talking about. The eastern end of Moria is
> protected by the "main bridge" over an immensely deep natural chasm. Armies can
> be held at bay here.
Only if the defenders were present in sufficient numbers to man the
defences (there would have to be walls, but these are not mentioned)
otherwise archers could drive the defenders away so that attackers
could cross the bridge.
>The western end was protected by the watcher in the pool
> and by the "magic" gates that will only open to someone who says the word
> "friend". [I wonder if they have to mean it?] With the gate closed, it would
> be difficult to attack there.
I got the impression that the Sirannon had been dammed and the pool
created, and the Watcher installed, in order to trap Balin's dwarves
in the Mines. In any case, Balin had occupied only the eastern parts
of Moria.
>Presumably, this was the passage through which
> the orcs gained entry originally.
No, the orcs attacked from the east (Nanduhirion) side, where Balin
was killed.
Troels Forchhammer
<news:2007012813262...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de> Dirk
Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
> Francis A. Miniter <min...@attglobalzz.net> wrote:
>>
>> I further take it that the steps that they climb or descend were
>> damaged not worn, and that the damage probably came in the battle
>> that caused the fall of Moria.
>
> I also always thought that a lot was damaged since Moria was
> abandoned.
Yes, I never imagined for a moment that any of the crevices the Company
has to jump in the first part of their journey were there when the
Dwarves inhabited the place and kept it in good repair.
The Balrog, of course, would probably cause some damage by itself
(together with Gandalf it made short work of the chamber of Mazarbul),
and the Dwarves may have tried to land a couple of stories worth of
stone on top of it in the fight (I suspect that underground fight have
a capacity for getting /very/ ugly), but even in combination I don't
think they would amount to the damage done by natural causes in the
following thousand years, when there were no-one to repair the tunnels.
<snip quotation>
> The Tale of Years says that the dwarves fled in 1981 T.A. from
> Moria, and in more than thousand years a lot can happen. Water,
> minor earthquakes, tension in the stone after the dwarves dug out
> a substantial bit, and so on.
Precisely.
In a thousand years, even in a geologically fairly stable region,
enough will happen during a thousand years to tunnels worth two days'
marching to justify the descriptions. And we should not, in our pursuit
of a story-internal cause, overlook the story-external one: the
fissures and chasms in Moria are there precisely to emphasize that it
is become an uninhabitated and desolate place since the Dwarves left.
> And since all this damage happened after the dwarves left, one
> wouldn't expect them to have built bridges etc. before :-)
Or to have otherwise attempted to repair it, exactly.
> But I don't think that the battle or the Balrog was the main
> cause: The nature of the damage just doesn't fit this theory.
I'd expect cave-ins and collapsed tunnels to be the result of the
fights between the Dwarves and the Balrog, much as it was the result of
the first contest between Gandalf and the Balrog.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next better one.
- Konrad Lorenz
Troels Forchhammer
<news:2007012813305...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de> Dirk
>>
>> A prime rule of writing is never to mentioned superfluous things.
>> If a crystal ball is mentioned on a desk, there is a good chance
>> it will become a murder weapon or somehow important.
>
> BTW, this always bothered me: In real life, it doesn't work this
> way, and if you know that everything that is mentioned is going to
> be important, it becomes far to easy to guess what is going to
> happen.
That maxim has always bothered me as well, and I don't believe it is
true in literature. The usual form seems to be Chekov's Gun (stated by
Anton Chekov, see e.g. Wikipedia on Chekov's Gun), which refers to
theatre, not literature.
One might, of course, get around it by using some rather broad
definition of what is necessary, but that would just make the whole
thing meaningless. There is no meaningful way, for instance, to define
'superfluous' such that it would limit the author's freedom and yet
allow Tom Bombadil (who does nothing, really, for the main plot, but is
there as a deliberate enigma and to serve an, IMO, rather obscure
metaphysical point -- not that I dislike him, I love the TB chapters
precisely for that).
And, as Stan points out, there is the whole mystery genre where
misdirection is an integral part of the formula.
So, whether or not people are actually trying to apply Chekov's Gun to
literature (as opposed to writing drama), I don't think it is valid for
literature in general, and it is certainly not valid for Tolkien in
particular.
That, however, doesn't invalidate Francis' main point: that one cannot
argue that because something doesn't appear in the narrative, it cannot
be in the sub-created reality. I do agree with that conclusion even if
I think that the argument is taking it too far ;)
> And Tolkien OTOH is quite good at sprinkling lots of "historical"
> hints over his text that are quite superflous for the main story
> (like the cats of Queen Beruthiel), but that create depth. Similar
> with his landscape descriptions. (Ok, both are not descriptions of
> "things" in your sense, but nevertheless).
Queen Berúthiel and her cats is a good example, IMO -- they don't mean
anything at all, and Tolkien, when he wrote LotR, didn't know what
Aragorn was referring to either. The whole Nimrodel song is another
example -- nothing in the song is actually important to the story, as
is also the case with Sam's song of the Trolls.
All of these, however, (and Tom Bombadil as well) serve to make a point
that is important to Tolkien. Tom showcases both the strength and the
vulnerability of the 'pure science' (science detached from any
practical and technological interest), Queen Berúthiel is simply
another one of these throw-away historical references, the only point
of which is to suggest the existance of a history, Sam's song furthers
the characterization of both Sam and Hobbits in general, and the song
of Nimrodel may merely be one of those things, which Stan mentions,
that are there simply because they are 'beautiful or interesting' (I
wouldn't object to the song of Nimrodel being called both <G>).
On the other hand Tolkien broke several other rules of thumb for
authors -- Shippey's description of II,2 'The Council of Elrond' comes
to mind, where he basically says that Tolkien broke half a dozen such
'rules' and nobody notices because he makes it work, and that is
actually a fantastic achievement.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Love while you've got
love to give.
Live while you've got
life to live.
- Piet Hein, /Memento Vivere/
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1169993828.6...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
"JJ" <jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> spoke these staves:
> On Jan 28, 1:15 am, "Francis A. Miniter" <mini...@attglobalZZ.net>
> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> The eastern end of Moria is protected by the "main bridge" over
>> an immensely deep natural chasm. Armies can be held at bay here.
>
> Only if the defenders were present in sufficient numbers to man
> the defences (there would have to be walls, but these are not
> mentioned)
Or the Dwarves had already developed the technology of pouring 'Very-
Hot-Things'(TM), and/or 'Very-Heavy-Things' down on the heads of the
invading enemies ;) (no mention of large cauldrons on the second
level either, but no matter!). And the Dwarves of Khazad-Dûm would,
in any case, have been able to erect strong defensive walls in very
short time (the enemy would have to gain access through the front
gates first).
From a narrative point, any defensive structures apart from the
bridge would, naturally, have been ignored by the Hobbits telling the
story.
> otherwise archers could drive the defenders away so that attackers
> could cross the bridge.
Nah -- they were Dwarves; they would have been killed in numbers
great enough for the second ranks to use the first as cover . . .
(stubborn little gits, those stunted ones <GG>).
>> The western end was protected by the watcher in the pool
>> and by the "magic" gates that will only open to someone who says
>> the word "friend". [I wonder if they have to mean it?] With
>> the gate closed, it would be difficult to attack there.
>
> I got the impression that the Sirannon had been dammed and the
> pool created, and the Watcher installed, in order to trap Balin's
> dwarves in the Mines.
I'm not sure that it was for the sake of Balin's colony, but it was
definitely /after/ Gandalf's prior visit, which, in its turn, was
after the Dwarves had fled Moria:
But I have never given much thought to why the Watcher came and
dammed the Sirannon. My assumption, as far as it went, has been that
it just crept out at some point, and started carving out its own
ecological niche in the surface world. The use of 'Watcher', however,
might suggest otherwise . . . interesting idea.
> In any case, Balin had occupied only the eastern parts of Moria.
Though obviously they had been around enough to know the way to the
Hollin Gate. I also wonder where they mined the truesilver -- surely
not where they were living.
>> Presumably, this was the passage through which the orcs gained
>> entry originally.
>
> No, the orcs attacked from the east (Nanduhirion) side, where
> Balin was killed.
And, perhaps more surprisingly, that was also where the Dwarves
themselves attacked in the fierce wars in revenge of Thrór.
The Orcs would not have been able to enter through the Hollin Gate if
the Dwarves had closed it behind them (or were the Dwarves attacked
by Orcs while they were defending Moria from the Balrog as well?),
but the main gates in the Dimrill Dale probably didn't present the
same problems without a defending force.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't
matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard Feynman
Kevin K
I don't recall mention of cave ins. That seems more likely than
crevices opening. But, especially on a route this long, wouldn't they
block the path?
Maybe JRRT envisioned some of their path backtracking and trying a
different tunnel, but why not mentioning it, at least in passing?
--
T.M. Sommers
> On Jan 28, 1:15 am, "Francis A. Miniter" <mini...@attglobalZZ.net>
> wrote:
>>Kevin K wrote:
>>
>>>The lack of a mention of earlier bridges was partially my point.
>>>Having to jump a 6 or 7 foot crevice doesn't seem like a well laid
>>>path.
>>
>>Now I think I see what you were talking about. The eastern end
of Moria is
>>protected by the "main bridge" over an immensely deep natural chasm. Armies can
>>be held at bay here.
>
> Only if the defenders were present in sufficient numbers to man the
> defences (there would have to be walls, but these are not mentioned)
> otherwise archers could drive the defenders away so that attackers
> could cross the bridge.
Walls, unless *very* high, are not much protection against
archers. Arrows have such a low velocity (only about 200 fps)
that they have to be fired with a high trajectory, which means
that they arrive on target from above, not from the front.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
Troels Forchhammer
"Kevin K" <kev...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:41:03 UTC, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> I'd expect cave-ins and collapsed tunnels to be the result of the
>> fights between the Dwarves and the Balrog, much as it was the
>> result of the first contest between Gandalf and the Balrog.
>
> I don't recall mention of cave ins.
There was the Chamber of Mazarbul that caved in as a result of
Gandalf and Balrog fighting over the door, but apart from that, I
don't recall any indications of collapsed tunnels. It is possible
that the Endless Stair was thought lost because the corridors to it
from the inhabited parts were all collapesed, but we don't know.
> That seems more likely than crevices opening. But, especially on a
> route this long, wouldn't they block the path?
Most likely, although not necessarily. Minor collapses might leave
room to crawl through, or it might be a small task to clear enough of
the rubble to get through.
My main point was, however, that the damage that we do witness: the
holes, pitfalls, fissures, chasms and the crack Pippin had
difficulties leaping; is all of a type which is not what I would
expect to be the results of fights between a Balrog and the Dwarves.
> Maybe JRRT envisioned some of their path backtracking and trying a
> different tunnel, but why not mentioning it, at least in passing?
He may have, but unless it was important to the story there is no
reason that he should mention it (Pippin's hesitation at jumping a
crack more than seven feet across is used simultaneously to
characterize the scene of Moria and as part of the characterization
of Pippin and Sam). Of course it could have been merely added to the
list of obstacles setting the scene for Pippin's leap.
Still, I am inclined to agree that there was probably nothing more
than a bit of rubble to climb here and there. Whether that can be
used to indicate that the fights between the Balrog and the
Longbeards didn't get around to the stage of collapsing parts of the
realm on top of each other before the Dwarves 'caved in' ;) I cannot
say -- it is possible that the main parts of that fight happened far
below in the tunnels the Company never reached, and others, more
imaginative than I, can probably come up with other, even more
likely, scenarios, so I'll just stick to my main point.
Troels Forchhammer
"T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> spoke these staves:
> JJ wrote:
>>
>> Only if the defenders were present in sufficient numbers to man
>> the defences (there would have to be walls, but these are not
>> mentioned) otherwise archers could drive the defenders away so
>> that attackers could cross the bridge.
>
> Walls, unless *very* high, are not much protection against
> archers. Arrows have such a low velocity (only about 200 fps)
> that they have to be fired with a high trajectory, which means
> that they arrive on target from above, not from the front.
The bridge itself is fifty feet, not very much in the context of
archery. The only experience I have with older bow-designs is with the
longbow, but at distances up to 100 m (about 300 feet), the arrow
doesn't reach much more than man-height -- say some 2.5 to 3 meters,
and the angle of the arrow (in the target, which might not be a very
good indicator) isn't far from the horisontal. At longer distances the
elevation will quickly rise, and the angle at which the arrow will come
in will quickly be quite steep (and the precision too low for modern
target shooting, except for enthusiastic boys eager to see how far they
can shoot their arrow . . . I mean, obviously I didn't; not very much,
at least <G> [Oh, and my own bow wasn't a longbow, but was lighter than
a typical long-bow]).
It is, of course, possible to shoot the arrow upwards, but I suppose
that would have been impossible in the caves due to the ceiling (at
fifty feet, the arrow would, at a guess, have to get to about the same
height).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
I have not been able to discover the cause of those
properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no
hypotheses;
- Sir Isaac Newton
JJ
On Jan 29, 2:43 am, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
> Walls, unless *very* high, are not much protection against
> archers. Arrows have such a low velocity (only about 200 fps)
> that they have to be fired with a high trajectory, which means
> that they arrive on target from above, not from the front.
>
Not at the short distance which we are talking about here - from one
end of a bridge to another. The big drawback (pun, har!har!) of a bow
is that you have to stand up to shoot, so that you are exposed to
anyone shooting back. As the orcs defeated the dwarves and took the
bridge, they must have outnumbered the dwarves and overwhelmed them
with arrows.
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1170077576.2...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "JJ"
<jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> As the orcs defeated the dwarves and took the bridge, they must
> have outnumbered the dwarves and overwhelmed them with arrows.
Which Orcs and which Dwarves do you speak of here? To the best of my
knowledge, there was no fight between Orcs and Dwarves at that place
where the orcs won (I am allowing for the possibility that Balin's
company routed a few orcs from the Second Hall of Old Moria when they
first arrived, but their eventual defeat was obviously about the
twentyfirst hall of North and the Chamber of Mazarbul where they
dwelled). There was, of course, no orcs involved in the original
decision to abandon Moria (or at least these did not make any
significant impact -- they are not mentioned in the accounts as far as
I can find).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical
results, but that's not why we do it.
- Richard Feynman
Derek Broughton
>
> But I have never given much thought to why the Watcher came and
> dammed the Sirannon. My assumption, as far as it went, has been that
> it just crept out at some point, and started carving out its own
> ecological niche in the surface world.
Yes, just another of the "nameless things that live at the roots of the
world" (or words to that effect).
> The use of 'Watcher', however,
> might suggest otherwise . . . interesting idea.
>
>> In any case, Balin had occupied only the eastern parts of Moria.
>
> Though obviously they had been around enough to know the way to the
> Hollin Gate. I also wonder where they mined the truesilver -- surely
> not where they were living.
LOL. They _were_ still able to hear the sounds of the drums at the end :-)
>
>>> Presumably, this was the passage through which the orcs gained
>>> entry originally.
>>
>> No, the orcs attacked from the east (Nanduhirion) side, where
>> Balin was killed.
While I agree, I don't think that's "originally". Originally, the dwarves
were in occupation already when Thrain was captured, iirc. I'm not sure
it's said how they got in, but I really doubt the Hollin gate. Then when
Balin arrived, any orcs still there (having lost huge numbers in the Battle
of Five Armies) were initially driven out or much deeper.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
>
> Walls, unless *very* high, are not much protection against
> archers. Arrows have such a low velocity (only about 200 fps)
> that they have to be fired with a high trajectory, which means
> that they arrive on target from above, not from the front.
insofar as it makes it fairly well impossible to actually _target_ an
individual behind the wall.
--
derek
Calvin
wrote:
> ... There is no meaningful way, for instance, to define
> 'superfluous' such that it would limit the author's freedom and yet
> allow Tom Bombadil (who does nothing, really, for the main plot, but is
> there as a deliberate enigma and to serve an, IMO, rather obscure
> metaphysical point -- not that I dislike him, I love the TB chapters
> precisely for that).
Though he may do nothing for the main plot, he certainly does
plenty for the story, not just as an enigma or to serve an obscure
metaphysical point. He is the only being in Middle-earth who is
not affected by the Ring, and he makes this absolutely essential,
in my opinion, speech:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"Hey! Come Frodo, there! Where be you a-going?
Old Tom Bombadil's not as blind as that yet.
Take off your golden ring! Your hand's more fair without it.
Come back! Leave your game and sit down beside me!
We must talk a while more, and think about the morning.
Tom must teach the right road, and keep your feet from wandering."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1170109957.0...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
Tom Bombadil:
> Though he may do nothing for the main plot, he certainly does
> plenty for the story, not just as an enigma or to serve an obscure
> metaphysical point. He is the only being in Middle-earth who is
> not affected by the Ring,
And that is precisely the obscure metaphysical point I referred to.
It is quite pointless unless you wonder /why/ Tom is impervious to
the effect of the Master Ring, and that speculation (and the answer
to the question) is a metaphysical point, which is, IMHO, rather
obscure.
Depending on how you define 'story' that point can be said to be
important or unimportant to the story -- it was important enough to
Tolkien, at least (even if not to his story), to keep it in, but he
also did realize that Tom's role in the War of the Ring was, to be
honest, negligible.
Personally I've always loved Tom, and I couldn't imagine the book
without him, but his detached life, his attempt at unphysical
observation (by which I mean that he tries to observe the world
without changing it) and particularly the way that he remains
unaffected by the Ring -- i.e. the factors that remove him from the
story of the War of the Ring -- are largely responsible for his
attraction to me.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
- /Small Gods/ (Terry Pratchett)
Calvin
wrote:
> In message
> <news:1170109957.0...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
> "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> spoke these staves:
> > not affected by the Ring,
> And that is precisely the obscure metaphysical point I referred to.
> It is quite pointless unless you wonder /why/ Tom is impervious to
> the effect of the Master Ring, and that speculation (and the answer
> to the question) is a metaphysical point, which is, IMHO, rather
> obscure.
> ...
Of course one wonders why, and though I'm aware that Tolkien
deliberately made Tom an enigma, I've had my answer ever
since the 1977 publication of The Silmarillion: Tom is Ilúvatar
himself, enjoying his creation to the fullest in company with
Goldberry. If one wants to quibble and say that Tom is an
avatar of Eru, that's fine, but I see the name Ilúvatar as already
suggesting the avataric state of Eru.
Now I'm very aware that this topic has been the subject of
many debates here, and I don't wish to start a new one. I'm
also aware that my view is in the minority. But a deliberately
planted enigma is going to create conjecture, and sometimes
debate, and I believe that this enigma is very much a part of
the intended effect of Tolkien's story.
Kevin K
wrote:
> Of course one wonders why, and though I'm aware that Tolkien
> deliberately made Tom an enigma, I've had my answer ever
> since the 1977 publication of The Silmarillion: Tom is IlŁvatar
> himself, enjoying his creation to the fullest in company with
> Goldberry. If one wants to quibble and say that Tom is an
> avatar of Eru, that's fine, but I see the name IlŁvatar as already
> suggesting the avataric state of Eru.
>
One thing I've wondered about Goldberry is just how old SHE is. And
is she immortal too? If not immortal, then is she the first consort
of Tom?
The Elves generally get round this by marrying for life (and in theory
beyond).
If she is not immortal, and is the first, why did Tom change his mind
and "shack up?"
Dirk Thierbach
> On Jan 29, 6:03 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> Of course one wonders why, and though I'm aware that Tolkien
> deliberately made Tom an enigma, I've had my answer ever
> since the 1977 publication of The Silmarillion: Tom is Ilúvatar
> himself,
There's no need to wonder, because other people (like me, for example)
think that this "answer" is just plain wrong :-)
(If Tom was Iluvatar, then letter #19, which describes him as the
"the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside",
would make no sense at all. Nor would letter #144.)
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> spoke
these staves:
>
<snip>
> Of course one wonders why, and though I'm aware that Tolkien
> deliberately made Tom an enigma, I've had my answer ever
> since the 1977 publication of The Silmarillion: Tom is Ilúvatar
> himself,
If it works for you, then whom am I to quibble? ;-)
Our discussions on e.g. the nature of Tom Bombadil are generally
focused on what Tolkien meant, forgetting that readers will often
form an opinion of the 'this works for me' variety, and that this
might be an equally valid interpretation of the book itself as the
interpretations and intentions of its author. For myself it wouldn't
work to see Tom as Eru -- there are too much that wouldn't fit with
my vision of Eru, but that shouldn't detain you ;-)
Tolkien, however, intended it otherwise (it is quite clear that in
Tolkien's intention, Tom is /not/ Ilúvatar), and since it is
ultimately his intentions that were all he had to consider when he
was to decide what to cut and what to keep, I think that has to be
the basis for a discussion of his inclusion of elements that don't
fit with Chekov's Gun.
In letter #156, Tolkien specifically rejects the idea that Tom is God
(i.e. Eru Ilúvatar), and in another letter he goes to more length
describing why Tom was important to himself:
Tom Bombadil is not an important person - to the
narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a
'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is
just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford
Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I
feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze
the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him
in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put
it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side,
and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny
against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against
compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power,
and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or
destructive, want a measure of control. but if you have,
as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control,
and take your delight in things for themselves without
reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some
extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs
of power and control might become utterly meaningless to
you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a
natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind
when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be
that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but
that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope;
and upon which its existence nonetheless depends.
Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow
Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be
left for him in the world of Sauron.
[Letters #144 to Naomi Mitchison, 1954]
So, to Tolkien's mind Tom is intended as a 'comment' -- he is not
important to the narrative (which is what Chekov's Gun, IMO,
intends), and I still think that the comment, or 'function', if you
will, is to make a relatively (to the rest of the story) obscure
metaphysical point.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Stop telling God what to do with his dice.
- Niels Bohr in response to Einstein
(also attributed to Enrico Fermi)
Calvin
wrote:
> For myself it wouldn't
> work to see Tom as Eru -- there are too much that wouldn't fit with
> my vision of Eru, but that shouldn't detain you ;-)
Tom does not fit my vision of Ilúvatar either, in his ultimate glory.
Not the Eru of the Music, nor the Ilúvatar who changed the world
at the end of the Second Age. To me, Tom is the cloak that Ilúvatar
chose to wear when he went on holiday in Middle-earth; when
he descended into his creation to 'experience' and enjoy it to the
fullest.
JJ
On Jan 29, 2:08 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
wrote:
> in message
> <news:1170077576.2...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "JJ"
> <j...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> spoke these staves:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As the orcs defeated the dwarves and took the bridge, they must
> > have outnumbered the dwarves and overwhelmed them with arrows.
> Which Orcs and which Dwarves do you speak of here? To the best of my
> knowledge, there was no fight between Orcs and Dwarves at that place
> where the orcs won (I am allowing for the possibility that Balin's
> company routed a few orcs from the Second Hall of Old Moria when they
> first arrived, but their eventual defeat was obviously about the
> twentyfirst hall of North and the Chamber of Mazarbul where they
> dwelled). There was, of course, no orcs involved in the original
> decision to abandon Moria (or at least these did not make any
> significant impact -- they are not mentioned in the accounts as far as
> I can find).
>
I meant the orcs which took Moria and destroyed Balin's dwarves.
Balin captured Moria and drove out the few orcs which remained, and
then set up his realm there. This lasted 30(?) years, and then orcs
arracked again. An orc shot Balin unawares when he was looking in
Mirrormere, and then they attacked the dwarves and destroyed them all.
(This is described in the Book of Mazarbul).
The orcs must have attacked, breached and entered the Gates, driven
the dwarves back over the Bridge, and then somehow defeated the
dwarves again so that they could cross the bridge before the dwarves
could destroy it. This is not described in the Book (or at least
Gandalf did not read it out) but it must have happened like that.
That was what I was describing.
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1170169282.3...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>>
<snip>
> I meant the orcs which took Moria and destroyed Balin's dwarves.
Ah, OK ;)
Yes, these orcs did take the bridge, I had forgotten, thanks.
> Balin captured Moria and drove out the few orcs which remained,
> and then set up his realm there.
Privately I doubt whether Balin & Co. managed to drive all orcs out of
Moria in the four years or so (TA2989 - TA2994).
You are right: the orcs did 'take' the bridge and the Second Hall
('/They have taken the Bridge and second hall. Frár and Lóni and Náli
fell there./'), although we don't know if they took it in the
conventional way (i.e. by attacking through the gate, down the stairs
and across the bridge).
The journal, shortly after Balin's death, states '/we have barred the
gates/, and then /can hold them long if/, and then perhaps /horrible/
and /suffer/.' One question is what the 'if' covers -- it appears that
the Dwarves' confidence that they could hold the gates was conditional,
but we don't know upon what ('. . . they cannot get in by other ways',
perhaps?).
We know for certain that Moria was not entered after the war between
the Dwarves and the Orcs, and it seems to me probable that there were
still a number of orcs left at that point, who would have multiplied
again -- only to be once more depleted at the battle of Five Armies,
but still not wiped out. The Dwarves of Balin's colony never
encountered the Balrog in their five years (unless it came at least at
their extermination), and it seems therefore likely to me that there
were also some orcs left inside Moria the whole time -- orcs who could
help the new arrivals to get in and take the Dwarves from behind.
[...]
> The orcs must have attacked, breached and entered the Gates,
> driven the dwarves back over the Bridge, and then somehow defeated
> the dwarves again so that they could cross the bridge before the
> dwarves could destroy it. This is not described in the Book (or
> at least Gandalf did not read it out) but it must have happened
> like that. That was what I was describing.
I don't agree that it /must/ have happened like that. It /might/ have,
but it is, IMO, not the only possible scenario, and possibly not even
the most likely one (as I said -- with a Balrog behind the Dwarven
defenses it ought not be necessary to fight on the dwarves' terms).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
I have not been able to discover the cause of those
Morgil
> I meant the orcs which took Moria and destroyed Balin's dwarves.
> Balin captured Moria and drove out the few orcs which remained, and
> then set up his realm there. This lasted 30(?) years, and then orcs
> arracked again. An orc shot Balin unawares when he was looking in
> Mirrormere, and then they attacked the dwarves and destroyed them all.
> (This is described in the Book of Mazarbul).
> The orcs must have attacked, breached and entered the Gates, driven
> the dwarves back over the Bridge, and then somehow defeated the
> dwarves again so that they could cross the bridge before the dwarves
> could destroy it. This is not described in the Book (or at least
> Gandalf did not read it out) but it must have happened like that.
> That was what I was describing.
It would seem more likely that at least most of the orcs
who destroyed Balin's group were already inside Moria,
hiding in the lower levels with the Balrog. The orcs who
came from outside were simply keeping the dwarves from
escaping, just as the Watcher was blocking the east gate.
At least that's how I would figure it.
Morgil
William Cloud Hicklin
But the Mazarbul collapse resulted from the *collision* of two spells by
two mighty magic-users. I don't get the impression that the Balrog caved
in tunnels on his own- he's not even that huge! I hope this isn't
creeping filmism.
--
Tolkien's written work is characterized by disputes over the ownership of
jewelry, and the hand injuries that occur as a result.
William Cloud Hicklin
Tolkien somewhere-or-other (The Hunt for the Ring?) says that the Orcs of
Moria were not numerous, but adequate to take out a party no larger nor
better-prepared than Balin.
Troels Forchhammer
<icelof...@mindspring.com> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
I suggested that fights between the dwarves and the Balrog were more
likely to produce collapses than the fissures and cracks observed by
the Company of the Ring:
> But the Mazarbul collapse resulted from the *collision* of two
> spells by two mighty magic-users.
Indeed, and in particular (I think this may be imporant) from the
strain of opposing forces; one trying to hold the door, the other
trying to open it.
> I don't get the impression that the Balrog caved in tunnels on
> his own- he's not even that huge!
Neither do I, but on the other hand I'm willing to credit him with at
least the possibility that he might do it on his own -- not, perhaps,
in the dramatic and sudden way it occurred when the door to the
Chamber of Mazarbul broke, but still ;)
And of course the dwarves who had built the tunnels in the first
place would also be able to collapse them in a collaborative effort.
The point I was trying to make was merely that the cracks, fissures,
pitfalls, chasms etc. that we are told the Company encountered during
their journey (particularly during the first march) were more likely
the result of geological processes in the thousand years since Moria
was deserted by the dwarves than the result of fights between the
dwarves and the Balrog prior to the flight of the dwarves.
Since I feel that any damage from such fights, /if it was to be
found/, would more likely be cave-ins, I concluded that it was, in my
view, very unlikely that the company encountered any such damage. I
cannot, however, rule out entirely the possibility that it might
exist outside the scope of the story (after all -- how were the
dwarves supposed to fight a Balrog in narrow tunnes, except by trying
to throw a few tons of rock on top of him; the Fëanorian stance might
be very heroic, but, as we saw, ultimately not a survivor's strategy
<G>).
> I hope this isn't creeping filmism.
So do I, although I'd have to say that I think the Balrog of Moria
was one of the points the film got fairly well (they had to go for
something about which one might say that 'it drew itself up to a
great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall').
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Amicus Plato - amicus Aristoteles - magis amica veritas
- Sir Isaac Newton
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
> Tolkien somewhere-or-other (The Hunt for the Ring?)
Yes, 'The Hunt for the Ring':
[Gollum] was in great peril of discovery by the servants
of Sauron that lurked in Moria,[11] . . .
[11] These were in fact not very numerous, it would seem;
but sufficient to keep any intruders out, if not better
armed or prepared than Balin's company, and not in great
numbers. [Author's note.]
[UT 3,IV,(ii) 'Other Versions of the Story']
I also remembered that the Orcs evidently were able to pursue the
Company of the Ring shortly after their flight from Moria /after/ the
Bridge of Khazad Dūm had been broken. They obviously had other routes
in and out of Moria than across the bridge.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Amr...@iinet.net.au
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:52:37 +0100, Troels Forchhammer
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>in message
><news:1169993828.6...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
>"JJ" <jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> spoke these staves:
>>
>> On Jan 28, 1:15 am, "Francis A. Miniter" <mini...@attglobalZZ.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>
><snip>
<snip>
>But I have never given much thought to why the Watcher came and
>dammed the Sirannon. My assumption, as far as it went, has been that
>it just crept out at some point, and started carving out its own
>ecological niche in the surface world. The use of 'Watcher', however,
>might suggest otherwise . . . interesting idea.
>
>> In any case, Balin had occupied only the eastern parts of Moria.
In the true annals of Durin's folk, not often shared with the other
free peoples of Middle-earth, it is recorded that as the last Dwarves
to flee the West Gate of Moria saw, just before the Doors were closed
on a hall filled with flame, a pathetic mewing creature flung from the
doors to land in a pool of of the Gate Stream.
Some have also said that they heard a huge voice speaking at the time
"And STAY Out There!
Damn ink stains in the bathtub, I told Sauron it doesn't work on
mithril....."
Guess that is why it wasn't widely reported >;-)
Walter Minne
Jens Kilian
> I also remembered that the Orcs evidently were able to pursue the
> Company of the Ring shortly after their flight from Moria /after/ the
Perhaps some of the windows that Gandalf talks about earlier; or perhaps
they just rigged a rope bridge across the chasm (which would have been easy,
as there were already Orcs on both sides).
--
mailto:j...@acm.org As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
http://del.icio.us/jjk
Emma Pease
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes:
>> I also remembered that the Orcs evidently were able to pursue the
>> Company of the Ring shortly after their flight from Moria /after/ the
>> Bridge of Khazad Dûm had been broken. They obviously had other routes
>> in and out of Moria than across the bridge.
>
> Perhaps some of the windows that Gandalf talks about earlier; or perhaps
> they just rigged a rope bridge across the chasm (which would have been easy,
> as there were already Orcs on both sides).
More interesting might be how Gollum got out. Did he cross the bridge
before the party knowing they would have to take that way to get out
or did he do so afterwards and if so how (climbing the walls and/or
ceiling to the other side?). Note it didn't take him very long to be
on their tail again.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Larry Swain
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes:
>
>>I also remembered that the Orcs evidently were able to pursue the
>>Company of the Ring shortly after their flight from Moria /after/ the
>>Bridge of Khazad Dûm had been broken. They obviously had other routes
>>in and out of Moria than across the bridge.
>
>
> Perhaps some of the windows that Gandalf talks about earlier; or perhaps
> they just rigged a rope bridge across the chasm (which would have been easy,
> as there were already Orcs on both sides).
spanned the chasm, and the orcs came across even before the
confrontation between Gandalf and the Balrog was decided.
Troels Forchhammer
Swain <thes...@operamail.com> spoke these staves:
> Jens Kilian wrote:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> I also remembered that the Orcs evidently were able to pursue
>>> the Company of the Ring shortly after their flight from Moria
>>> /after/ the Bridge of Khazad Dûm had been broken. They
>>> obviously had other routes in and out of Moria than across
>>> the bridge.
>>
>> Perhaps some of the windows that Gandalf talks about earlier;
The windows on the mountain side. I suppose that is possible, though
I would have imagined that the Dwarves had ensured that the windows
were placed so as to be unassailable from the outside, lest they be
used to gain entry into Moria.
>> or perhaps they just rigged a rope bridge across the chasm
>> (which would have been easy, as there were already Orcs on
>> both sides).
Again, it is possible. The chasm itself was fifty feet, and and
they'd need some extra to get it anchored etc. But I think it is much
simpler to assume that there were side tunnels -- perhaps some made
by the Dwarves (to have some postern-doors like that used at the
Battle of Helm's Deep to fight the enemies trying to ram down the
main gate) and perhaps some digged by the orcs.
> Before the bridge was broken, trolls put down large stone slabs
> that spanned the chasm, and the orcs came across even before the
> confrontation between Gandalf and the Balrog was decided.
That was a different gap.
They peered out. Before them was another cavernous hall.
It was loftier and far longer than the one in which they
had slept. They were near its eastern end; westward it ran
away into darkness. Down the centre stalked a double line
of towering pillars. They were carved like boles of mighty
trees whose boughs upheld the roof with a branching
tracery of stone. Their stems were smooth and black, but a
red glow was darkly mirrored in their sides. Right across
the floor, close to the feet of two huge pillars a great
fissure had opened. Out of it a fierce red light came, and
now and again flames licked at the brink and curled about
the bases of the columns. Wisps of dark smoke wavered in
the hot air.
`If we had come by the main road down from the upper
halls, we should have been trapped here,´ said Gandalf.
`Let us hope that the fire now lies between us and
pursuit. Come! There is no time to lose.´
As it were they were /not/ trapped, but had a free run towards the
Bridge. The tunnel by which they came, in other words, exited between
the chasm spanned by the Bridge, and this fiery fissure, which had
opened.
When the company halted /before/ the Bridge, they noticed that
Two great trolls appeared; they bore great slabs of stone,
and flung them down to serve as gangways over the fire.
I.e. the trolls flung their slaps of stone over the fissure which was
on the far side of the tunnel the company had exited from.
The Balrog then appeared and 'with a rush it leaped across the
fissure' with the fire, the orcs follow it by the stone slaps flung
down by the trolls, Gandalf order the rest of the company to cross
the bridge, and when 'The Balrog readhed the bridge. Gandalf stood in
the middle of the span.'
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
JimboCat
>Before the bridge was broken, trolls put down large stone slabs that
>spanned the chasm, and the orcs came across even before the
>confrontation between Gandalf and the Balrog was decided.
Wrong chasm, unless my picture of it is and always has been wrong. The
ancient chasm with the narrow bridge to the entrance had no fire in
it. The fiery chasm that the trolls bridged with stone slabs seems to
have been a more recent rent. The orcs were "on the wrong side" of it,
and this gave the Company hope, until those durned trolls and their
stone slabs, anyway. That couldn't mean that the orcs were on the side
with access to the entrance, nor could it mean that they were on the
same side as the Company. And a chasm only *has* two sides.
I've always pictured the fiery chasm as at more-or-less right angles
to the ancient defensive chasm with its narrow bridge. The orcs were
actually cut off from the Company at first (until those meddlesome
trolls brought in their slabs of rock). The Balrog leapt over the
fiery chasm, then tried to cross the Dwarves' bridge after the
Company: it wouldn't make sense for him to do that if he was already
between the bridge and the entrance to Moria.
(orcs, trolls, Balrog)| | |
fiery chasm | | |
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~| | |
| |Dwarves' entrance
|=|Bridge
(the Company) | | |
| | |
| | |
The Company crossed the bridge. The Balrog leapt the fiery chasm, and
Gandalf destroyed the bridge. Company escapes through the entrance.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"My parents visited a planet where the life-forms were not bilaterally
symmetrical and all I got was this lousy F-shirt."
Christopher Kreuzer
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>> Before the bridge was broken, trolls put down large stone slabs that
>> spanned the chasm, and the orcs came across even before the
>> confrontation between Gandalf and the Balrog was decided.
>
> Wrong chasm
My reading of it has always, like you and Troels, had this fiery chasm be a
different, more recent rent. But the details differ.
> I've always pictured the fiery chasm as at more-or-less right angles
> to the ancient defensive chasm with its narrow bridge.
I've always thought of it as just "over there" somewhere. Not at
right-angles. More parallel. The diagram below doesn't give the levels, but
imagine the company going downwards to the level of the Great Hall.
Chamber of
Mazarbul <--- 21st Hall of the North End
| (on the Seventh Level)
| |
| |
| Second Hall of Old Moria (western end)
| (the First Deep level)
| |
| Balrog, trolls and orcs
| |
| |
| Fiery chasm
| |
Company |
exit here ------> |
|
Durin's Bridge
|
|
EXIT up stairs and through First Hall
Let's hope that ASCII artwork comes out OK.
Looking up the names of the halls and the levels got me thinking. I had
forgotten they had descended below the level of the Gates. I think the
'Atlas of Middle-earth' has a nice map of all this, with some indication
(possibly speculative) as to whether the exit on the East side of Moria was
above or below the level they had entered at through the Doors of Durin on
the West side. The Company definitely go up and down a lot, with lots of
variation in temperature. And _twenty-first_ hall! Eight (at least) levels.
How many levels and halls did they have? Plus an endless stair and a
bottomless chasm. Anyone like to guess just how large Moria was?
"The Mines of Moria were vast and intricate beyond the imagination of Gimli,
Gloin's son, dwarf of the mountain-race though he was." (A Journey in the
Dark)
Maybe that is the best we can say. The films did get this right though. They
made the mines look vast, and they were vast.
Christopher
Larry Swain
Hi Troels,
You and Jimbo are correct, thanks. I reread the passage and suggest the
following:
We know that NOT ALL the orccs in Moria are in pursuit of the Company,
we know that there are guards on the door, and probably guards and
support on the east side of the chasm. I suggest that those who
followed them into Lothlorien were the gate guards, which Aragorn
intimates when he says in the next chapter that orcs will travel far to
avenge a fallen captain...such as the one he slew at the gate. And the
company that enters the elven woods (what?!!?? orcs in Lothlorien??
Indeed they wanted vengeance!) does not seem to have been a large force
(described only as "many feet" which may fit a dozen as much as a larger
force) and was apparently easily dispatched.
The force that goes to Isengard and then heads down with the Isengarders
to capture the hobbits at Parth Galen seem then to have come later
(though why they went to Isengard rather than Mordor or Dol Guldur since
at least some of those in Mordor were Mordor orcs is beyond me). It
probably wouldn't take them long to make something makeshift across the
chasm, a rope bridge, then later adding stone slabs with rope guides or
even a wooden bridge. And by long I mean 2-3 weeks to allow them to get
to Isengard and then down to Parth Galen.
Further, I don't have the book Christopher refers to, but I find it
unlikely that the East and West of Moria were utterly sundered except by
the one bridge over the chasm in that hall. That might be a good
defense, but hardly efficient or effective. There must have been other
connections further up and further back....going back a long way
perhaps, a day or two march into the interior of Moria and then back,
but connections nonetheless. Christopher, can you scan in the image
from Fonstad?
Larry
Michael Ikeda
news:1LOdnQEw1rqX0FfY...@rcn.net:
> We know that NOT ALL the orccs in Moria are in pursuit of the
> Company, we know that there are guards on the door, and probably
> guards and support on the east side of the chasm. I suggest
> that those who followed them into Lothlorien were the gate
> guards, which Aragorn intimates when he says in the next chapter
> that orcs will travel far to avenge a fallen captain...such as
> the one he slew at the gate. And the company that enters the
> elven woods (what?!!?? orcs in Lothlorien?? Indeed they wanted
> vengeance!) does not seem to have been a large force (described
> only as "many feet" which may fit a dozen as much as a larger
> force) and was apparently easily dispatched.
>
Haldir describes them as "a strong company of Orcs" and later says
"The three of us could not challenge a hundred". However, it would
still seem plausible that the orcs were gathered from among those
orcs reasonably close to the gate.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Raven
news:1LOdnQEw1rqX0FfY...@rcn.net...
> I suggest that those who followed them into Lothlorien were the
> gate guards, which Aragorn intimates when he says in the next
> chapter that orcs will travel far to avenge a fallen captain...such as
> the one he slew at the gate.
That might be either the gate-chieftain or the one who attacked Frodo in
the Chamber of Mazarbul. Or both, or neither. But the orcs certainly felt
that the had something to avenge, so much so that they ventured into deadly
peril for the purpose.
Cuervo.
William Cloud Hicklin
And also sent a substantial company, 100 at least, to rendezvous with
Ugluk's and Grishnakh's smaller companies. The connection between Saruman
and Moria is perplexing, but it's there: Tokien's time-scheme relates that
following the Bridge, orc-messengers bring the news to *Isengard.* Hmph?
One might speculate that this was ordered by the "black uruks of Mordor"
present, operating on the assumption that Saruman was Sauron's trusted
ally, and Isengard much closer than Barad-dur, but one would have expected
the fastest route to have been to Sarn Gebir, where Orcs held the
east-bank, and at least one Nazgul would be present by late February.
This is where Grishnakh went for further orders after the fight with
Ugluk. But perhaps that detachment was sent out as a result of the news
from Moria, while the Company was in Lorien; apparently the Nazgul
wouldn't recover from Bruinen until the end of the January (so why did the
Fellowship waste a month in Caras Galadhon??) It's still a puzzle never
explained.
Larry Swain
Yes it might be, but the point was who or what was pursuing the Company
and how they exited Moria with the bridge destroyed rather than WHOM
they were avenging.
Larry Swain
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:06:40 -0500, Raven
> <jon.lennart.beck...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
>
>> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1LOdnQEw1rqX0FfY...@rcn.net...
>>
>>> I suggest that those who followed them into Lothlorien were the
>>> gate guards, which Aragorn intimates when he says in the next
>>> chapter that orcs will travel far to avenge a fallen captain...such as
>>> the one he slew at the gate.
>>
>>
>> That might be either the gate-chieftain or the one who attacked
>> Frodo in
>> the Chamber of Mazarbul. Or both, or neither. But the orcs
>> certainly felt
>> that the had something to avenge, so much so that they ventured into
>> deadly
>> peril for the purpose.
>>
>
> And also sent a substantial company, 100 at least, to rendezvous with
> Ugluk's and Grishnakh's smaller companies. The connection between
> Saruman and Moria is perplexing, but it's there: Tokien's time-scheme
> relates that following the Bridge, orc-messengers bring the news to
> *Isengard.* Hmph?
It doesn't seem to be "quick", but yes there is a connection. Unless
I'm misremembering, and I may be, it seems that a large company of Moria
orcs went to Isengard and then joined up with Saruman's troop and went
to Sarn Gebir, while a separate troop came from the east bank of the
Anduin. Why the Moria orcs went to Isengard first (reinforcements?)
rather than toward Dul Guldur is puzzling, I must say.
> One might speculate that this was ordered by the "black uruks of
> Mordor" present, operating on the assumption that Saruman was Sauron's
> trusted ally, and Isengard much closer than Barad-dur, but one would
> have expected the fastest route to have been to Sarn Gebir, where Orcs
> held the east-bank, and at least one Nazgul would be present by late
> February.
On the other hand, at least by end of February they know Saruman to be a
traitor even down on the Ugluk and Grishnakh level, and we aren't told
that anything changed in the month between so that orcs going to Moria
at the end of January should think Saruman a staunch ally and at the end
of February a traitor. So its still a puzzle. And if Mordor orcs
ordered it, why not order them to go to Dol Guldur where there are 2
Nazgul, and is a bit closer (though not much) than Isengard. Quite odd
if you ask me.
This is where Grishnakh went for further orders after the
> fight with Ugluk. But perhaps that detachment was sent out as a result
> of the news from Moria, while the Company was in Lorien; apparently the
> Nazgul wouldn't recover from Bruinen until the end of the January (so
> why did the Fellowship waste a month in Caras Galadhon??) It's still a
> puzzle never explained.
I think they lost track of time due to the nature of Lorien.....
Emma Pease
> William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:06:40 -0500, Raven
>> <jon.lennart.beck...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
>>
>>> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1LOdnQEw1rqX0FfY...@rcn.net...
>>>
>>>> I suggest that those who followed them into Lothlorien were the
>>>> gate guards, which Aragorn intimates when he says in the next
>>>> chapter that orcs will travel far to avenge a fallen captain...such as
>>>> the one he slew at the gate.
>>>
>>>
>>> That might be either the gate-chieftain or the one who attacked
>>> Frodo in
>>> the Chamber of Mazarbul. Or both, or neither. But the orcs
>>> certainly felt
>>> that the had something to avenge, so much so that they ventured into
>>> deadly
>>> peril for the purpose.
>>>
>>
>> And also sent a substantial company, 100 at least, to rendezvous with
>> Ugluk's and Grishnakh's smaller companies. The connection between
>> Saruman and Moria is perplexing, but it's there: Tokien's time-scheme
>> relates that following the Bridge, orc-messengers bring the news to
>> *Isengard.* Hmph?
Well did all the Moria orcs follow Sauron or had Saruman subverted
some? My guess is that the Moria orcs more directly followed the
Balrog and through him, possibly, Sauron (how much allegiance a Balrog
would feel for Sauron is another question). After the Balrog's
vanishing, the remaining orcs had a choice of going to Dol Guldor
(but Lorien was somewhat in the way for a direct route) or to
Saruman. Saruman must have had dealings with the Misty Mountain orcs
in order to get the breeding stock he used to produce his own orcs.
My guess is the dealings were extensive and many may have felt he was
a better choice of master than Sauron.
And/or Galadriel deliberately kept them there. She might have used
the mirror very shortly after the party arrived and something she saw
might have told her to wait before sending them on. Note if they had
left earlier they still would have gone to Amon Hen (minus perhaps an
attack while on the river), Boromir would still have attacked Frodo,
Frodo would have gone to the high seat, but there would have been no
Gandalf to counteract Sauron's influence (take off the ring! fool).
The delay allowed Gandalf to be in a position to act.
Michael Ikeda
>
> On the other hand, at least by end of February they know Saruman
> to be a traitor even down on the Ugluk and Grishnakh level
I'm not sure that's true. It seems that the interactions between
Ugluk and Grishnakh can be explained by a combination of natural
quarrelsomeness of orcs and the rivalry that can develop between
different units of a military force. There may not be anything else
going on when it comes to Ugluk.
There probably is something else going on as far as Grishnakh is
concerned. He seems to suspect something, but it isn't clear whether
it's suspicion of past betrayals or suspicion of future betrayals.
(Note that Grishnakh's characterization of Saruman as a "treacherous
fool" does not actually require any knowledge that Saruman is
planning to betray Sauron.)
Grishnakh also seems unusually knowledgeable and perhaps relatively
highly placed for an orc. Even if he knows something that doesn't
mean that the orcs in Moria would also know.
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
>>>
>> And also sent a substantial company, 100 at least, to rendezvous with
>> Ugluk's and Grishnakh's smaller companies. The connection between
>> Saruman and Moria is perplexing, but it's there: Tokien's time-scheme
>> relates that following the Bridge, orc-messengers bring the news to
>> *Isengard.* Hmph?
>
> It doesn't seem to be "quick", but yes there is a connection. Unless
> I'm misremembering, and I may be, it seems that a large company of Moria
> orcs went to Isengard and then joined up with Saruman's troop and went
> to Sarn Gebir, while a separate troop came from the east bank of the
> Anduin. Why the Moria orcs went to Isengard first (reinforcements?)
> rather than toward Dul Guldur is puzzling, I must say.....And if Mordor
> orcs ordered it, why not order them to go to Dol Guldur where there are
> 2 Nazgul, and is a bit closer (though not much) than Isengard. Quite
> odd if you ask me.
>
That I think is due to the River, and to Lorien. Where could they cross
Anduin? Either the Old Ford east of Rivendell (2 to three weeks' trip each
way, judging by the Fellowship's parallel journey down the west side of
the Mountains), or someplace downstream. But Lorien lay to the south,
meaning that they would have to skirt it on the western side (as indeed
the Moria-company did), and then... what? Although there were (or would
be) orcs on the far bank of Sarn Gebir, I don't imagine it was a safe
ferry point; and anyway by the time you've followed the Mountains to the
southwest of Lorien Isengard really is the closest contact point. Most
imporant: Saruman could then relay news to Sauron by palantir, a comm-link
no other station possessed. Not that Orcs would know this in detail, but
they would be aware that their masters kept in touch through some
sorcerous means.
As for Dol Guldur, that would have involved a lot of backtracking from say
Nen Hithoel or the Undeeps; and I doubt there were any Nazgul there in
mid-January- they had been sent to hunt for the Ring, and after the
Bruinen were making their way unhorsed back to Mordor, which apparently
they would not reach until the end of the month. My own opinion is that
the ambush-force at Sarn Gebir wasn't sent out until after the news from
Moria reached Sauron.
As for Saruman's treachery and its detection: It's hard for me to discern
much in Grishnakh's statements beyond Orkish suspicion and contempt, but
the first overt appearance of "treason" on Saruman's part lies precisely
at this point in the story: Ugluk's determination to take the prisoners to
Isengard, a move of such significance that Grishnakh feels he has to
withdraw for further instructions, and the Nazgul he consults orders him
back to keep tabs (by a forced march even more breathtaking than Ugluk's).
It's no wonder Eomer dispatched them wth such ease- they must have been
bloody exhausted!
Larry Swain
Unknown as far as I know, and the question is whether the Moria orcs
would have seen a difference between serving Saruman or Sauron or not.
My guess is that the Moria orcs more directly followed the
> Balrog and through him, possibly, Sauron (how much allegiance a Balrog
> would feel for Sauron is another question).
We don't actually know that the balrog was followed in that sense. That
the balrog worked in conjunction with the orcs against Gandalf and Co.
is true, but it doesn't follow from that fact that the Balrog was thus
"in command" or that it "followed" Sauron or Saruman. As Treebeard says
later, their respective paths may have travelled together for a time--i.
e. they had the same immediate end in mind: repel the invaders.
After the Balrog's
> vanishing, the remaining orcs had a choice of going to Dol Guldor
> (but Lorien was somewhat in the way for a direct route)
Not at all. The Fellowship followed the Celebrant down to Nimrodel, and
the Nimrodel then into Lothlorien. The orcs need not have followed the
Celebrant as far as the Fellowship and so cut cross country on the NE
side of Lorien and come out a little north of Dol Guldur. Or likewise,
followed the Celebrant to Nimrodel, crossed Nimrodel before entering the
wood and so down the SW side of Lorien. The former would be more direct
and likely, and certainly shorter than going to Isengard.
or to
> Saruman. Saruman must have had dealings with the Misty Mountain orcs
> in order to get the breeding stock he used to produce his own orcs.
Where are we told that Saruman was breeding orcs? That he bred
half-breeds (probably male orcs with human women) seems to be true,
something not even Sauron seems to have done--though he must have done
so with some sort of "quick growth" chemical in order to get all the
troops he needed so quickly.
> My guess is the dealings were extensive and many may have felt he was
> a better choice of master than Sauron.
As far as I know, far beyond the information in TOlkien and so highly
speculative. It is doubtful though that given the choice between an
ancient and much feared master, Sauron, they would choose Saruman, the
new upstart.
Certainly possible, though again far beyond anything actually in the book.
Note if they had
> left earlier they still would have gone to Amon Hen (minus perhaps an
> attack while on the river), Boromir would still have attacked Frodo,
> Frodo would have gone to the high seat, but there would have been no
> Gandalf to counteract Sauron's influence (take off the ring! fool).
> The delay allowed Gandalf to be in a position to act.
An excellent point!
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
Not at all.
> The Fellowship followed the Celebrant down to Nimrodel, and the Nimrodel
> then into Lothlorien. The orcs need not have followed the Celebrant as
> far as the Fellowship and so cut cross country on the NE side of Lorien
> and come out a little north of Dol Guldur.
But, again, on the wrong side of Anduin. Without boats I'm unaware of any
crossing south of the East Road until at the least the Undeeps, if not
Osgiliath (which is why Sauron seized the bridge there in June).
> Or likewise, followed the Celebrant to Nimrodel, crossed Nimrodel before
> entering the wood and so down the SW side of Lorien. The former would
> be more direct and likely, and certainly shorter than going to Isengard.
--
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
> news:vY6dnaDMPsYllVDY...@rcn.net:
>
>
>>On the other hand, at least by end of February they know Saruman
>>to be a traitor even down on the Ugluk and Grishnakh level
>
>
> I'm not sure that's true. It seems that the interactions between
> Ugluk and Grishnakh can be explained by a combination of natural
> quarrelsomeness of orcs and the rivalry that can develop between
> different units of a military force. There may not be anything else
> going on when it comes to Ugluk.
I am fairly sure. "Who does he think he is setting up on his own" does
not sound to me as mere trading of barbs between rivals.
>
> There probably is something else going on as far as Grishnakh is
> concerned. He seems to suspect something, but it isn't clear whether
> it's suspicion of past betrayals or suspicion of future betrayals.
It seems that both Ugluk and Grishnakh know quite a lot of what's going
on, even more in some ways than the Fellowship, but more importantly
they aren't quiet about it. We could say on the one hand that the news
they impart to us the reader is also news to the rest of the orcs, but I
don't think the text is easily read that way. As for Grishnakh's
"suspicions" of Saruman, I think they are more than that, since he
explicitly states that the Great Eye is on Saruman. I doubt that such a
thing would be said in idle threat, and it also echoes and foreshadows
what we will later be told more than once by Gandalf. So unless ol'
Gandalf is also merely suspicious with no foundation, I'd have to say
that Grishnakh knows Saruman is as well. He may not know the extent,
but he knows.
> (Note that Grishnakh's characterization of Saruman as a "treacherous
> fool" does not actually require any knowledge that Saruman is
> planning to betray Sauron.)
But the statement is explicitly preceded by the statement that Saruman
has set up on his own, which suggests the following statement about
Saruman being a treacherous fool involves some knowledge that Saruman is
playing with his own designs.
>
> Grishnakh also seems unusually knowledgeable and perhaps relatively
> highly placed for an orc. Even if he knows something that doesn't
> mean that the orcs in Moria would also know.
That's a point. Much depends I suppose on where one thinks the troop of
orcs came from in the first place. Gandalf says that there are uruks of
Mordor there, which suggests they came from Mordor, or the east side of
the river since there were encampments over there. It seems odd though
that as late as January Sauron would have his troops report to Saruman
given that by that point he knows that Saruman knew more than he let on
about the Ring and its whereabouts. Given that, if the Moria orcs don't
know, it still seems odd to me that that is where they went rather than
down to the river.
Larry Swain
Grishnakh crossed, at least twice. As presumably did the troop of orcs
sent to fortify Moria days before the Fellowship's arrival. As did the
troops who attack Lorien during the War of the Ring. As do the orcs who
were said to have raided Rohan's horses. It does not seem to be as
significant a barrier and I think you are making it.
Without positing the use of boats, a ferry, or other contrivance, there
is Gladden Fields, much closer than the East-West Road crossing you
mention, and certainly as close as Isengard.
>
> As for Dol Guldur, that would have involved a lot of backtracking from
> say Nen Hithoel or the Undeeps; and I doubt there were any Nazgul there
> in mid-January- they had been sent to hunt for the Ring, and after the
> Bruinen were making their way unhorsed back to Mordor, which apparently
> they would not reach until the end of the month.
The Ford of Bruinen happened on October 20. If we assume that unhorsed
and on foot, the Nazgul can travel as fast as a hobbit walking, and it
takes the hobbits 3 weeks (Dec. 25 to Jan 17) to travel from Rivendell
to Lorien, halfway to the Blackgate which we can assume would take on
foot 6 weeks, and lets give them even an extra 2 weeks for being slow.
That's 2 months. So say two months for the 9 to travel from the Fords
to the Black Gate or to Minas Morgul, and heck, let's be generous and
give them to the end of December, almost 2 1/2 months. Now if we look
at other journeys, Aragorn driving Gollum on foot can walk from the
Wetwang to Thranduill's halls in 50 days and Gandalf can ride from
Thranduill's halls to Hobbiton (and this not on Shadowfax) in 15 days,
and can ride Shadowfax from Rohan to Bree in a week, and the Nine
themselves can ride from the Fords of the Isen to Sarn Ford in 4 days,
why then would we suppose that it would take more than 3 weeks for a
rehorsed Nazgul to ride from Minas Morgul or the Black Gate to Dol
Guldur and other strategic points on the east bank of the river or that
it would take them more than 3 months to perform a journey the
Fellowship take less than half that time to complete?
My own opinion is that
> the ambush-force at Sarn Gebir wasn't sent out until after the news
> from Moria reached Sauron.
More than that. In order to plan an ambush at Sarn Gebir, Sauron would
have to know not only what happened at Moria, but also know that the
Ring and its bearers were on the river and where the most likely place
to ambush them was, since he figured they were going to Minas Tirith
rather than disembarking before that. And Saruman would have to know
that same information as well.
>
> As for Saruman's treachery and its detection: It's hard for me to
> discern much in Grishnakh's statements beyond Orkish suspicion and
> contempt, but the first overt appearance of "treason" on Saruman's part
> lies precisely at this point in the story: Ugluk's determination to
> take the prisoners to Isengard, a move of such significance that
> Grishnakh feels he has to withdraw for further instructions, and the
> Nazgul he consults orders him back to keep tabs (by a forced march even
> more breathtaking than Ugluk's).
Not quite. The first sign of Saruman's treachery is that before this
time Sauron knows that Saruman has not been completely forthcoming about
his knowledge of the Ring's whereabouts and had a closer eye on Saruman
than Saruman would want.
Larry Swain
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:39:42 -0500, Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> Not at all.
>
>> The Fellowship followed the Celebrant down to Nimrodel, and the
>> Nimrodel then into Lothlorien. The orcs need not have followed the
>> Celebrant as far as the Fellowship and so cut cross country on the NE
>> side of Lorien and come out a little north of Dol Guldur.
>
>
> But, again, on the wrong side of Anduin. Without boats I'm unaware of
> any crossing south of the East Road until at the least the Undeeps, if
> not Osgiliath (which is why Sauron seized the bridge there in June).
Yes, but we have to suppose the use of boats, see my other posts in the
thread. Further, we also know that there is a watch on Lothlorien, so
reaching the banks of the river on the "wrong" side means that they
simply have to communicate with the other side, not necessarily cross over.
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> Yes, but we have to suppose the use of boats
Do we? If so, why did Sauron go to the trouble of seizing the bridge at
Osgiliath just to get the Nazgul across? Moreover, it's one thing to
ferry over one or two messengers, and quite another to move 100 orcs.
Anduin is a major barrier, like the Rhine, and moving troops across in any
force is a big logistical undertaking.
It also strikes me that if the object was to intercept the Fellowship,
there would be no reason to cross the River, since as far as S&S were
concerned, its likely route was to Minas Tirith or some other Western
stronghold, certainly nowhere on the Sauronian east shore. In that case
Orthanc was the best location from which to launch a hunting party.
Moreover, AFAIK the last fix S&S had on the Fellowship's position before
Moria was in Hollin, west of the Mountains, so Isengard would have been
considered the principal base from which to operate.
I would have to think that the Moria orcs bypassed Lorien on the mountain
side, perhaps making use of preexisting tunnels- they certainly couldn't
have followed Silverlode, since even outside the Naith the Galadhrim
regarded the woods south of Nimrodel as "theirs," at least for defensive
purposes. The ambush party at Sarn Gebir I think almost necessarily was
sent out as a result of the messengers from Moria (no need for it if the
Company stayed in Eregion), and so couldn't have been a destination for
those messengers.
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> The Ford of Bruinen happened on October 20. If we assume that unhorsed
> and on foot, the Nazgul can travel as fast as a hobbit walking, and it
> takes the hobbits 3 weeks (Dec. 25 to Jan 17) to travel from Rivendell
> to Lorien, halfway to the Blackgate which we can assume would take on
> foot 6 weeks, and lets give them even an extra 2 weeks for being slow.
> That's 2 months. So say two months for the 9 to travel from the Fords
> to the Black Gate or to Minas Morgul, and heck, let's be generous and
> give them to the end of December,
This is by no means conclusive, but it sheds light:
"[The Witch-king] unclad, naked, invisible rode as swift as he could back
to Mordor. At swiftest he could not accomplish that . . . ere November
had passed...Help no doubt was sent out to the other Ringwraiths as they
made their way beck, and they were bidden to remain secret again. It was
no doubt at the end of 1418 that Sauron bethough him of the winged mounts;
and yet withheld them, until things became almost desperate and he was
forced to launch his war in haste." --The Hunt for the Ring (in Hammond &
Scull, RC p. 262)
The difficulty here is what is meant by "remain secret," and whether that
would include being stationed at Dol Guldur. It's interesting that Sauron
reserved all nine for the assault on Gondor, and sent none to attack
Lorien or Thranduil.
It would be very interesting indeed to see waht Tolkien's master
time-scheme (at Marquette) has to say about the movements of the Nazgul in
November and December.
We do however have this:
"January 15: Moria-orcs pursue Co. over Silverlode [read Nimrodel?].
Driven off by Elves. Messengers leave Moria to Isengard [260 miles],
bringing news of events to Saruman, and also mentioning the appearance of
Gollum...Messages also go to Barad-dur [680 miles], some by evil birds...
January 18: Orc-runners reach Isengard. Saruman is greatly moved but
dares not act independently of Sauron, until he is certain. Sends out
scouts under his Orc-Captain Ugluk. Grishnakh sets out from Mordor.
January 22: Saruman's scouts return to Moria, and gather a force of
mountain-orcs. They cannot penetrate Lorien, but lurk outside especially
watching the river-exit.
January 24: Isengarders capture Gollum, and torment him for news.
Gollum...escapes after revealing that Hobbits of the Shire were with
Gandalf, and enough is said to make Ugluk certain that the Ring [???!!!]
was with the Company. Ugluk sends news to Isengard of Hobbits; but not of
the Ring.
January 26: Grishnakh, having crossed Anduin near rapids [OK, Larry
:)] comes up west side, and intercepts Ugluk's messengers, and learns
their news. (He retreats, makes contact with a Nazgul near Sarn Gebir and
awaits orders).
January 30: Saruman receiving news decides to act on his own. Sends
out strong force to join Ugluk, orders them to bring hobbits *alive* to
Isengard.
February 2: Grishnakh reinforced. Ordered to cooperate with Ugluk
(Sauron does not yet suspect Saruman) [point to me :)]
February 6: Ugluk scours northern Rohan
February 10: Ugluk and Grishnakh make contact above Sarn Gebir.
Rohirrim drive off Isengarders, who retreat to Emyn Muil, leaving west
bank unguarded. Grishnakh watches east bank near Sarn Gebir.
February 22: Grishnakh's scouts get wind of approach of Coy. A Nazgul
is summoned, but Sauron will not yet permit the Nazgul to cross west of
Anduin.
February 23: Orcs are foiled. Legolas shoots down the Nazgul. The Orcs
dismayed, but Grishnakh crosses Anduin and daringly pushes down west shore
in pursuit. He believes Coy is making for Minas Tirith.
February 25: Grishnakh and Ugluk meet in western Emyn Muil. They go in
search of the Coy.
February 26: ....after attacking and destroying the Coy Orcs hurry
towards Isengard. Quarrel bet. Ugluk and Grishnakh (sundown). Grish flies*
north to Sarn Gebir. Ug descends into Rohan and begins a wild forced march
towards Fangorn with his prey.
*So Orcs can fly, just like Balrogs! :)
February 27: Grishnakh reaches Sarn Gebir. Another Nazgul has arrived
with advice. He is to pursue Ugluk. Nazgul sets his Orcs across the River.
G hastens off N.W. to intercept Ugluk."
A note: "Forced march of Grishnakh. Flies from Emyn Muil when defeated by
Ugluk evening 26. Reaches Sarn Gebir late on 27. He has more than 100
miles to go to point where he intercepts Ugluk about 30 mi N. of Downs,
about 11:20 on 29th. This he does between midnight 27/8 and 11:20 on 29th,
about 35 hours." (Hammond and Scull, RC, pp 360-1, 378-9)
When intercepted by Eomer, the force numbered 100 Moria-orcs, 80
Isengarders, 40 from Mordor.
Larry Swain
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:31:04 -0500, Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but we have to suppose the use of boats
>
>
> Do we?
Yes, as I said, see my other posts in the thread. Grishnakh tells us
that he and his men came across from the east bank, and he returned
there for orders; we know assaults were made on Lothlorien, various
places in Rohan, including the road to Minas Tirith, none of which
forces came over the bridges of Osgiliath and I would say that they
didn't go all the way north to the East-West Road and back south. We
know that orcs have made regular raids on Rohan's horses, taking
especially the black ones...and again, it is unlikely that these came
over the bridges at Osgiliath and back driving the horses all that way
unmarked by Gondor. So yes, we have to assume boats, rafts, and other
contrivances across the river.
If so, why did Sauron go to the trouble of seizing the bridge at
> Osgiliath just to get the Nazgul across?
All sorts of reasons from the psychological to the strategic, including
this is how he would get troops across later and to test the strength of
Denethor among other reasons.
Moreover, it's one thing to
> ferry over one or two messengers, and quite another to move 100 orcs.
Indeed. I was talking about why messengers went to Isengard rather than
Mordor. Yes, there were 100 Moria orcs with Ugluk set on revenge, but
that still doesn't explain why they reported to Isengard first instead
of keeping watch on Lothlorien and sending messengers to Dol Guldur.
BTW, this brings up another issue tangential to this discussion. In one
of the Letters Tolkien says that the number of orcs in Moria was not
great, but enough to take care of the Fellowship in battle. Now in
Lorien, Haldir makes the comment that "we three can not take care of
100" or something to that effect, and even if we take the "100" as a
figurative use for "a big troop" or "a lot o' orcses", it still is part
of the problem I'm outlining. Finally, we know that over 100 Moria orcs
are with Ugluk (some few have died etc), and I think we can assume that
there are at least a few left yet in MOria---that's a troop of 200-300
at the least in Moria which seems far more than Tolkien intimates in the
Letter.
> Anduin is a major barrier, like the Rhine, and moving troops across in
> any force is a big logistical undertaking.
Yes, it is a major barrier, and we know historically speaking that
troops did in fact move across it.
> It also strikes me that if the object was to intercept the Fellowship,
> there would be no reason to cross the River, since as far as S&S were
> concerned, its likely route was to Minas Tirith or some other Western
> stronghold, certainly nowhere on the Sauronian east shore.
But Grishnakh explicitly states that he came from the east shore, not
Isengard, with orders to capture hobbits and return with them to the
east shore.
In that case
> Orthanc was the best location from which to launch a hunting party.
Not really. We already know that the east shore has several encampments
of orcs, some of whom have already been seen by the Fellowship. They're
closer to Mordor and to the Fellowship than Isengard, and under the
command of a Nazgul it would seem. One of those encampments would be a
far better place to launch a hunting party than a location several days
march over hostile territory.
> Moreover, AFAIK the last fix S&S had on the Fellowship's position
> before Moria was in Hollin, west of the Mountains, so Isengard would
> have been considered the principal base from which to operate.
If they had a fix on it, but that gets us into another discussion
altogether. They certainly have a fix on them after Moria though, since
they're tracked into Lothlorien, which makes Dul Guldor the more likely
base, and marked leaving Lothlorien and seen by the enemy on the east
bank more than once after leaving Lothlorien making a location on the
east bank of the Anduin the better base of operations rather than again,
a locale several days quick march over hostile territory.
Larry Swain
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:49:23 -0500, Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Ford of Bruinen happened on October 20. If we assume that
>> unhorsed and on foot, the Nazgul can travel as fast as a hobbit
>> walking, and it takes the hobbits 3 weeks (Dec. 25 to Jan 17) to
>> travel from Rivendell to Lorien, halfway to the Blackgate which we
>> can assume would take on foot 6 weeks, and lets give them even an
>> extra 2 weeks for being slow. That's 2 months. So say two months for
>> the 9 to travel from the Fords to the Black Gate or to Minas Morgul,
>> and heck, let's be generous and give them to the end of December,
>
>
>
> This is by no means conclusive, but it sheds light:
>
> "[The Witch-king] unclad, naked, invisible rode as swift as he could
> back to Mordor.
Yes, on the one horse surviving the flood....
At swiftest he could not accomplish that . . . ere
> November had passed...
Right, point to me then, there's no reason from the POV of travel time
that the Nazgul can not be back in place in Dol Guldur and other points
on the east bank by the time the Fellowship goes to Moria.
Help no doubt was sent out to the other
> Ringwraiths as they made their way beck, and they were bidden to remain
> secret again. It was no doubt at the end of 1418 that Sauron bethough
> him of the winged mounts;
3018 perhaps?
and yet withheld them, until things became
> almost desperate and he was forced to launch his war in haste." --The
> Hunt for the Ring (in Hammond & Scull, RC p. 262)
Yes, I know this passage from other discussions now, and it does answer
the shadow over the moon the Fellowship senses in Hollin, though there
is no indication that the reverse is true.
> The difficulty here is what is meant by "remain secret," and whether
> that would include being stationed at Dol Guldur.
He had Nazgul at Dol Guldur since 2951. A further problem is "launch
his war in haste" since we see Nazgul on winged mounts some weeks at the
least before the war was launched.
It's interesting that
> Sauron reserved all nine for the assault on Gondor, and sent none to
> attack Lorien or Thranduil.
Do we know that? I don't recall that we are told that all 9 are at
Pelennor Fields.
> It would be very interesting indeed to see waht Tolkien's master
> time-scheme (at Marquette) has to say about the movements of the Nazgul
> in November and December.
>
>
> We do however have this:
>
> "January 15: Moria-orcs pursue Co. over Silverlode [read Nimrodel?].
> Driven off by Elves. Messengers leave Moria to Isengard [260 miles],
> bringing news of events to Saruman, and also mentioning the appearance
> of Gollum...Messages also go to Barad-dur [680 miles], some by evil
> birds...
Ok
> January 18: Orc-runners reach Isengard. Saruman is greatly moved
> but dares not act independently of Sauron, until he is certain. Sends
> out scouts under his Orc-Captain Ugluk. Grishnakh sets out from Mordor.
> January 22: Saruman's scouts return to Moria, and gather a force of
> mountain-orcs. They cannot penetrate Lorien, but lurk outside
> especially watching the river-exit.
> January 24: Isengarders capture Gollum, and torment him for news.
> Gollum...escapes after revealing that Hobbits of the Shire were with
> Gandalf, and enough is said to make Ugluk certain that the Ring
> [???!!!] was with the Company. Ugluk sends news to Isengard of Hobbits;
> but not of the Ring.
> January 26: Grishnakh, having crossed Anduin near rapids [OK, Larry
> :)] comes up west side, and intercepts Ugluk's messengers, and learns
> their news. (He retreats, makes contact with a Nazgul near Sarn Gebir
> and awaits orders).
> January 30: Saruman receiving news decides to act on his own.
> Sends out strong force to join Ugluk, orders them to bring hobbits
> *alive* to Isengard.
> February 2: Grishnakh reinforced. Ordered to cooperate with Ugluk
> (Sauron does not yet suspect Saruman) [point to me :)]
Yes. But this then contradicts implications in the book and in UT. In
UT, The Hunt for the Ring the W-K (I like to call him Alfie) learns of
Saruman's treachery and withholding info about the Ring when he is south
of Bree. Surely he can not have forgotten this on his return to Mordor
and reporting in.
<good info snipped>
Michael Ikeda
>
> BTW, this brings up another issue tangential to this discussion.
> In one of the Letters Tolkien says that the number of orcs in
> Moria was not great, but enough to take care of the Fellowship
> in battle. Now in Lorien, Haldir makes the comment that "we
> three can not take care of 100" or something to that effect, and
> even if we take the "100" as a figurative use for "a big troop"
> or "a lot o' orcses", it still is part of the problem I'm
> outlining. Finally, we know that over 100 Moria orcs are with
> Ugluk (some few have died etc), and I think we can assume that
> there are at least a few left yet in MOria---that's a troop of
> 200-300 at the least in Moria which seems far more than Tolkien
> intimates in the Letter.
>
Does Tolkien give any indication of what he means by "not great".
Given the size of Sauron's total forces, even several thousand could
be considered "not great" by comparison.
Christopher Kreuzer
> William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
<snip>
>> It's interesting that
>> Sauron reserved all nine for the assault on Gondor, and sent none to
>> attack Lorien or Thranduil.
>
> Do we know that? I don't recall that we are told that all 9 are at
> Pelennor Fields.
The full number is probably given somewhere in some Appendix or something.
In the text itself, there is this:
"'They have come!' he said. 'Take courage and look! There are fell things
below.'
Reluctantly Pippin climbed on to the seat and looked out over the wall. The
Pelennor lay dim beneath him, fading away to the scarce guessed line of the
Great River. But now wheeling swiftly across it, like shadows of untimely
night, he saw in the middle airs below him five birdlike forms, horrible as
carrion-fowl yet greater than eagles, cruel as death." (The Siege of Gondor)
Christopher
T.M. Sommers
> in message <news:45bd5ed8$0$17937$470e...@news.pa.net>
> "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> spoke these staves:
>>JJ wrote:
>>
>>>Only if the defenders were present in sufficient numbers to man
>>>the defences (there would have to be walls, but these are not
>>>mentioned) otherwise archers could drive the defenders away so
>>>that attackers could cross the bridge.
>>
>>Walls, unless *very* high, are not much protection against
>>archers. Arrows have such a low velocity (only about 200 fps)
>>that they have to be fired with a high trajectory, which means
>>that they arrive on target from above, not from the front.
>
> The bridge itself is fifty feet, not very much in the context of
> archery.
Archer and target would not necessarily be standing directly
across from each other, each on the brink of the chasm.
Tactically, I would expect the attacker to concentrate fire on
those in the immediate area of the bridge, because the battle
would be won on lost there. Likewise, the defender would
concentrate on the attackers on the bridge, or approaching it.
At least during the actual assault.
At any rate, if an archer found he could not hit someone behind a
wall with a direct shot, he would only have to back up until the
terminal trajectory of the arrow was vertical enough to avoid the
wall.
> The only experience I have with older bow-designs is with the
> longbow, but at distances up to 100 m (about 300 feet), the arrow
> doesn't reach much more than man-height -- say some 2.5 to 3 meters,
> and the angle of the arrow (in the target, which might not be a very
> good indicator) isn't far from the horisontal.
I would not expect dwarves and orcs to be using longbows
underground. The would probably have bows and arrows more
suitable to the shorter ranges they would expect to encounter.
> At longer distances the
> elevation will quickly rise, and the angle at which the arrow will come
> in will quickly be quite steep
Exactly.
> (and the precision too low for modern
> target shooting,
Combat archery would have different requirements from modern
target shooting. You're shooting at a mass of targets, so it
doesn't matter much if you don't hit the exact one you are aiming
at, because you will probably hit another one in the vicinity.
> It is, of course, possible to shoot the arrow upwards, but I suppose
> that would have been impossible in the caves due to the ceiling (at
> fifty feet, the arrow would, at a guess, have to get to about the same
> height).
Obviously the ceiling height is critical. I think it is
described as "lofty", which to me implies it is high enough.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
Odysseus
Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
> William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
<snip>
> > Help no doubt was sent out to the other Ringwraiths as they made
> > their way beck, and they were bidden to remain secret again. It
> > was no doubt at the end of 1418 that Sauron bethough him of the
> > winged mounts;
>
> 3018 perhaps?
The year 1418 in the Shire Reckoning is elsewhere known as T.A. 3018
(Stewards' Reckoning). The Shire was founded in T.A. 1600.
--
Odysseus
Larry Swain
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> Odysseus wrote:
At the time T wrote his Time-scheme he hadn't yet decided that there was
more than one calendar in operation; all his dates werre in (later)
Shire-reckoning.
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> "January 15: Moria-orcs pursue Co. over Silverlode [read
What I find interesting about this account is that at the time of
Gandalf's fall, the news is sent out direct to Isengard and Mordor, and
*not* to Dol Guldur (or elsewhere)- and of course there's no indication,
until the Fellowship leaves Lorien a month later, that there are camps on
the east bank of the river. Seems likely to me that they were established
as a result of the news from Moria/Lorien. In other words, however logical
it may seem to us to have a command-post and Nazgul base at Dol Guldur,
Tolkien didn't put one there.
As to Sarn Gebir: as I think I mentioned before (maybe not)- this is one
strange place to set up a ferry-station. A major-league boat-killing
rapid, which nobody has ever survived in the dark? To use as a nighttime
boat-crossing?
But the more I look the more I believe Sarn Gebir was a rendezvous, ambush
site, and point for *Nazgul-hauling* of small parties across Anduin. It
seems to me that Grishnakh had few if any companions up until he rejoined
Ugluk outside Fangorn- he was a scout. For Feb 27, the "new" twoscore
Mordor-orcs, the Scheme says "Nazgul sets his Orcs across the River." It
seems as if the crossing-pont here was by beast, not boat. Again,
Grishnakh earlier says "*I* came across", not "we", and when he brings up
the Nazgul waiting the Moria-orcs object that Grishnakh will "fly away
with our prisoners" and claim the credit. (This of course is exactly what
Sauron intended- but Saruman and Ugluk don't play that way). Dragging the
prisoners across hostile Rohan makes no sense for Sauron, of course- but
it wasn't his idea. It's Saruman's at this point, effectively using his
local troop superiority to flout Sauron's designs.)
You mention later river-crossings, but I would point out that they were
*part of the war*- combat crossings under fire, by way of Cair Andros and
Osgiliath, and into Lorien. Not the sort of thing you do discreetly. Prior
to D-Day, we didn't insert spies into Europe by landing-craft! And again,
why bother, if you already have plentiful troops on the correct side of
the River? Plainly Isengard/Moria was a workable base combination, since
after all Ugluk succeeded.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in
> news:6MCdnZtKRtgiAlLY...@rcn.net:
>
>
>
>>BTW, this brings up another issue tangential to this discussion.
>> In one of the Letters Tolkien says that the number of orcs in
>>Moria was not great, but enough to take care of the Fellowship
>>in battle. Now in Lorien, Haldir makes the comment that "we
>>three can not take care of 100" or something to that effect, and
>>even if we take the "100" as a figurative use for "a big troop"
>>or "a lot o' orcses", it still is part of the problem I'm
>>outlining. Finally, we know that over 100 Moria orcs are with
>>Ugluk (some few have died etc), and I think we can assume that
>>there are at least a few left yet in MOria---that's a troop of
>>200-300 at the least in Moria which seems far more than Tolkien
>>intimates in the Letter.
>>
>
>
> Does Tolkien give any indication of what he means by "not great".
> Given the size of Sauron's total forces, even several thousand could
> be considered "not great" by comparison.
>
Michael,
No he doesn't, but it also doesn't give the impression in the Letter to
which I refer that he means "not great by comparison with Sauron's
entire forces".
Larry Swain
But he did. In the Tale of Years, Appendix B, he has 3 Nazgul stationed
there since 2951, one assumes with some sort of force of orcs. Further,
in UT, The Hunt for the Ring, the origin of the orcs who come to
rescue Gollum from Thranduil's house are from Dol Guldur and it is there
that they are taking Gollum when he gives them the slip (confirmed by
Legolas in the Council of Elrond who reports that the tracked them going
to Dol Guldur). This is in fact MONTHS before the Fellowship comes
through Moria. Earlier in the same text Tolkien explicity informs us
that the Nazgul from Dol Guldur net the other six at the Field of
Celebrant, so they had to cross the river somewhere, and just prior to
that that the Six received raiment and horses at Sarn Gebir where these
had been ferried across for their use in searching for the Ring. All
this suggests a command-post if not a full fledged fortification with a
battalion or two at Dol Guldur.
>
> As to Sarn Gebir: as I think I mentioned before (maybe not)- this is
> one strange place to set up a ferry-station. A major-league
> boat-killing rapid, which nobody has ever survived in the dark? To use
> as a nighttime boat-crossing?
>
> But the more I look the more I believe Sarn Gebir was a rendezvous,
> ambush site, and point for *Nazgul-hauling* of small parties across
> Anduin. It seems to me that Grishnakh had few if any companions up
> until he rejoined Ugluk outside Fangorn- he was a scout. For Feb 27,
> the "new" twoscore Mordor-orcs, the Scheme says "Nazgul sets his Orcs
> across the River." It seems as if the crossing-pont here was by beast,
> not boat.
How have you concluded this from that statement? It doesn't follow that
"set" means beast rather than boat, and one notes if "by beast",
Grishnakh is on foot. Are you saying that they rode with the Nazgul on
his winged steed?
Again, Grishnakh earlier says "*I* came across", not "we",
> and when he brings up the Nazgul waiting the Moria-orcs object that
> Grishnakh will "fly away with our prisoners" and claim the credit.
True, but Grishnakh was not alone in assaulting the Fellowship.
Rereading the final chapter of Book II again I note that it is clear
that there were two waves: the Mordor wave that was largely repulsed and
the Isengard wave reinforced with Moria orcs that was successful. On
retreat, what was left of the Mordor wave combined with the other and in
spite of Grishnakh's efforts, there was a quarrel. The Mordor wave
wasn't encamped on the west side of the river, they had to have come
across at some point, either with Grishnakh or sometime later to join
with him. Since from Hunt for the Ring we know that things are ferried
across at Sarn Gebir, it seems reasonable to suppose that orcs can be so
ferried as well...particularly since neither Gondor nor Rohan guards the
area.
> (This of course is exactly what Sauron intended- but Saruman and Ugluk
> don't play that way). Dragging the prisoners across hostile Rohan
> makes no sense for Sauron, of course- but it wasn't his idea. It's
> Saruman's at this point, effectively using his local troop superiority
> to flout Sauron's designs.)
Yes William, thanks for stating the obvious for me, I have read the
novel a time or two and figured that out.
> You mention later river-crossings,
Some are later, some are earlier.
but I would point out that they were
> *part of the war*- combat crossings under fire, by way of Cair Andros
> and Osgiliath, and into Lorien.
There's no evidence that the assaults on Lorien and Rohan came through
Osgiliath.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> At the time T wrote his Time-scheme he hadn't yet decided that there
> was more than one calendar in operation; all his dates werre in
> (later) Shire-reckoning.
That's an eye-opener, and no mistake, Mr Frodo! That Mr T. he went and
calculated a whole new calendar from scratch after writing out the story.
Curiouser and curiouser...
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> But he did. In the Tale of Years, Appendix B, he has 3 Nazgul stationed
> there since 2951, one assumes with some sort of force of orcs. Further,
> in UT, The Hunt for the Ring, the origin of the orcs who come to
> rescue Gollum from Thranduil's house are from Dol Guldur and it is there
> that they are taking Gollum when he gives them the slip (confirmed by
> Legolas in the Council of Elrond who reports that the tracked them going
> to Dol Guldur). This is in fact MONTHS before the Fellowship comes
> through Moria. Earlier in the same text Tolkien explicity informs us
> that the Nazgul from Dol Guldur net the other six at the Field of
> Celebrant, so they had to cross the river somewhere, and just prior to
> that that the Six received raiment and horses at Sarn Gebir where these
> had been ferried across for their use in searching for the Ring. All
> this suggests a command-post if not a full fledged fortification with a
> battalion or two at Dol Guldur.
Please! Of course Dol Guldur was heavily manned (or orked) throughout,
and was the principal base for Sauron's northern operations. The question
is whether it was on the communications line from Moria to Mordor for
high-priority messages. Apparently it wasn't, since messages could get
straight to Barad-dur. Presumably whoever was in command at DG was out of
the loop with regard to the Ring- highly classified, need-to-know,
eyes-only stuff. There is no evidence that Khamul and his companion (or
two) returned to DG after the Bruinen, and their re-clothing and
remounting in Mordor.
In any event, it seems that according to the Scheme, no messages went
there, and no Orcs came from there- they went to Mordor and Isengard,
resulting in Grishnakh and Ugluk being despatched from those places. It's
IMO not unreasonable that Sauron would have wanted news of Gandalf & Co
*at once*, and the quickest ways to do that, given the necessity of
bypassing Lorien on the west, was by way of Orthanc's palantir, and by
carrier-crow. Whatever the reason, T doesn't say anything about messages
going to DG. One might suppose that those few Mordor-Orcs like Grishnakh
who were "cleared" for Ring-related information were all at Lugburz.
>
>> As to Sarn Gebir: as I think I mentioned before (maybe not)- this is
>> one strange place to set up a ferry-station. A major-league
>> boat-killing rapid, which nobody has ever survived in the dark? To
>> use as a nighttime boat-crossing?
>> But the more I look the more I believe Sarn Gebir was a rendezvous,
>> ambush site, and point for *Nazgul-hauling* of small parties across
>> Anduin. It seems to me that Grishnakh had few if any companions up
>> until he rejoined Ugluk outside Fangorn- he was a scout. For Feb 27,
>> the "new" twoscore Mordor-orcs, the Scheme says "Nazgul sets his Orcs
>> across the River." It seems as if the crossing-pont here was by beast,
>> not boat.
>
> How have you concluded this from that statement? It doesn't follow that
> "set" means beast rather than boat, and one notes if "by beast",
> Grishnakh is on foot. Are you saying that they rode with the Nazgul on
> his winged steed?
Or were carried talon-wise. Or perhaps there were boats, despite the
danger- but not in any great numbers. Mark Boromir: "no boat can live in
Sarn Gebir, be it night or day." Certainly the Moria-orcs in the quarrel
believe the River is uncrossable- they say their numbers are not great
enough "to venture down to the bridges," and Grishnakh's response is to
bring up the Ringwraith, not boats. In II/10, Aragorn says he has never
heard of Orcs on Amon Hen, but who knows "now that Minas Tirith no longer
holds secure the passages of Anduin." The "passages" A. is speaking of
would have to lie below Entwash to fall within MT's ambit.
>
> Again, Grishnakh earlier says "*I* came across", not "we",
>> and when he brings up the Nazgul waiting the Moria-orcs object that
>> Grishnakh will "fly away with our prisoners" and claim the credit.
>
> True, but Grishnakh was not alone in assaulting the Fellowship.
> Rereading the final chapter of Book II again I note that it is clear
> that there were two waves: the Mordor wave that was largely repulsed and
> the Isengard wave reinforced with Moria orcs that was successful. On
> retreat, what was left of the Mordor wave combined with the other and in
> spite of Grishnakh's efforts, there was a quarrel. The Mordor wave
> wasn't encamped on the west side of the river, they had to have come
> across at some point, either with Grishnakh or sometime later to join
> with him. Since from Hunt for the Ring we know that things are ferried
> across at Sarn Gebir, it seems reasonable to suppose that orcs can be so
> ferried as well...particularly since neither Gondor nor Rohan guards the
> area.
>
I'm not sure I get that impression from II/10: the attack hasn't happened
yet! In III/1 there is (the aftermath of) a single fight, in which Boromir
fell. According to Aragorn, there are dead Moria-Orcs here, as well as
four Isengarders, and the plainest interpretation of his words would
indeed place Mordor corpses there as well. Pippin's recollection is that
Boromir at first made the Orcs draw back, but then they closed again,; I
don't see two "waves," and certainly no mention of different composition.
But rereading Book III/3 one gets the decided feel that Grishnakh is the
only Mordor-orc present at the quarrel. He calls himself "their trusted
*messenger*", and when Pippin looks he sees U. and G. surrounded by "many
smaller goblins. Pippin supposed that these were the ones from the North"
(and in III/2 Aragorn IDs the dead as Northerners). G then slips away; no
followers are mentioned. Only when G. re-appears two days later does
Pippin notice "there was Grishnakh again, and at his back a couple of
score of others like him: long-armed crook-legged Orcs. They had a red eye
painted on their shields." To my eye at least the implication is that
Grishnakh's followers were new to Pippin; that they had not been present
at the quarrel. Presumably these are the Orcs the Nazgul "set" across
Aduin the night of the 27th.
My hypothesis therefore is that the reinforcements Grishnakh received on
the 24th were for the purpose of setting the ambush at Sarn Gebir. When
this failed, Grishnakh alone ("trusted messenger") or with a handful of
companions crossed the river, trailed the Company, and encountered Ugluk's
force whom they put on the scent. If there were companions G. brought
across with him, Boromir, Legolas or Gimli must have killed them for
Aragorn to observe, since he had none by the night of the 26th. The bulk
of G's command (40 Orcs of the Eye) remained on the east bank until he
came back for orders on the night of 27/28 Feb.
>
>> You mention later river-crossings,
>
> Some are later, some are earlier.
>
> but I would point out that they were
>> *part of the war*- combat crossings under fire, by way of Cair Andros
>> and Osgiliath, and into Lorien.
>
> There's no evidence that the assaults on Lorien and Rohan came through
> Osgiliath.
That's not what I was saying. The invasion of Rohan came by way of Cair
Andros. The attack on Lorien came out of Southern Mirkwood, presumably
directly into the Golden Wood (else Silverlode would have been an
effective barrier). But they were all contested assault landings, not easy
ferry-crossings. The only hostile crossing of the Anduin prior to the War
of the Ring was that of the Balchoth, who crossed at the Undeeps on many
rafts.
You're perhaps underestimating the magnitude of the effort involved in
moving significant numbers of troops across a major river-barrier in
rowboats. Washington's famed crossing of the (smaller) Delaware took ten
hours- without killer rapids. Napoleon's campaign marches focused very
largely on securing, destroying, and building bridges- boats just weren't
an option. In classical times the Rhine was an absolute block, except when
the Romans built a bridge- or the famous occasion in 406-7 when it froze,
precipitating the crisis of the Western Empire.
T.M. Sommers
>
> You're perhaps underestimating the magnitude of the effort involved in
> moving significant numbers of troops across a major river-barrier in
> rowboats. Washington's famed crossing of the (smaller) Delaware took
> ten hours- without killer rapids.
But with ice so bad that at least one column had to give up and
go back. Not to mention the snowstorm that night.
> Napoleon's campaign marches focused
> very largely on securing, destroying, and building bridges- boats just
> weren't an option. In classical times the Rhine was an absolute block,
> except when the Romans built a bridge- or the famous occasion in 406-7
> when it froze, precipitating the crisis of the Western Empire.
Don't forget, though, that Darius built a pontoon bridge across
the Bosporus, and Xerxes built one (actually 4) across the
Hellespont. Any of the people of Middle-earth would have been
able to bridge any Middle-earth river if they had wanted to.
Odysseus
Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
Non sequitur; he may not have used Stewards' Reckoning either. (AFAIK
the text is silent on the calendar used in Mordor.) Anyway, when we read
that Julius Cęsar was assassinated in 44 BC, there's no implication
that's what _he_ would have called the year. Unless there are
indications otherwise, I would assume any of Tolkien's historical notes
to be from the POV of hobbit historians, among whom the use of SR would
be only natural.
--
Odysseus
William Cloud Hicklin
> Don't forget, though, that Darius built a pontoon bridge across the
> Bosporus, and Xerxes built one (actually 4) across the Hellespont. Any
> of the people of Middle-earth would have been able to bridge any
> Middle-earth river if they had wanted to.
Using how many thousands of men? Darius and Xerxes used vast manpower.
When Caesar bridged the Rhine he had four legions at work on it for weeks.
That Sauron could do this for a major invasion is unquestioned- after all
he did repair the bridges at Osgiliath- but simply for raiders and scouts?
At any rate, Tolkien only mentions the existence of one bridge over
Anduin, and two fords over its upper course.
Larry Swain
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:20:25 -0500, Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> But he did. In the Tale of Years, Appendix B, he has 3 Nazgul
>> stationed there since 2951, one assumes with some sort of force of
>> orcs. Further, in UT, The Hunt for the Ring, the origin of the
>> orcs who come to rescue Gollum from Thranduil's house are from Dol
>> Guldur and it is there that they are taking Gollum when he gives them
>> the slip (confirmed by Legolas in the Council of Elrond who reports
>> that the tracked them going to Dol Guldur). This is in fact MONTHS
>> before the Fellowship comes through Moria. Earlier in the same text
>> Tolkien explicity informs us that the Nazgul from Dol Guldur net the
>> other six at the Field of Celebrant, so they had to cross the river
>> somewhere, and just prior to that that the Six received raiment and
>> horses at Sarn Gebir where these had been ferried across for their
>> use in searching for the Ring. All this suggests a command-post if
>> not a full fledged fortification with a battalion or two at Dol Guldur.
>
>
> Please! Of course Dol Guldur was heavily manned (or orked) throughout,
> and was the principal base for Sauron's northern operations.
Then why did you state "In other words, however logical it may seem to
us to have a command-post and Nazgul base at Dol Guldur, Tolkien didn't
put one there." Seems to me you want to claim two different things:
that Dol Guldur was and was not a command base for northern operations.
The
> question is whether it was on the communications line from Moria to
> Mordor for high-priority messages.
And that's a good question. The question is why isn't it, and why is
Saruman this late? According to UT's Hunt for the Ring, Sauron knows of
Saruman's treachery a) from the W-K and b) certainly by the time he
mounts the rescue mission for Gollum. It seems odd that Sauron this
late would continue to trust Saruman, particularly in the matter of
hobbits and the Ring tripping into Lothlorien. And certainly Dol Guldur
is a lot closer than either Isengard or Mordor, and if we're using the
birds that Tolkien mentions, the issue of a river crossing is moot.
Apparently it wasn't, since messages
> could get straight to Barad-dur.
Which again raises the question of why go to Saruman at all. If
messages can get straight to central command, and then instructions
disseminated to Saruman, to Dol Guldur, to other Moria etc, why report
to Saruman at all, it certainly didn't make things easier. And it is
clear from the chronology that you posted that though Ugluk and
Grishnakh exchange some news before the capture of Merry and Pippin, it
is also clear that they are not working together or in tandem.
Presumably whoever was in command at
> DG was out of the loop with regard to the Ring- highly classified,
> need-to-know, eyes-only stuff.
So that Grishnakh and Ugluk know, but the Nazgul at Dol Guldur don't?
Come, I find that difficult to swallow.
There is no evidence that Khamul and his
> companion (or two) returned to DG after the Bruinen, and their
> re-clothing and remounting in Mordor.
There's also no evidence that they didn't. There is indirect evidence:
as pointed out by someone else already only 5 are seen at the Battle of
the Pelennor: so where are the others? Coordinating other war efforts,
and since 2 prongs of that effort stem from Dol Guldur (the 3 assaults
on Lorien, the attack on Thranduil), it would not be unreasonable to
suppose that Sauron continued his policy of having Nazgul in Dol Guldur.
> In any event, it seems that according to the Scheme, no messages went
> there, and no Orcs came from there- they went to Mordor and Isengard,
> resulting in Grishnakh and Ugluk being despatched from those places.
> It's IMO not unreasonable that Sauron would have wanted news of Gandalf
> & Co *at once*, and the quickest ways to do that, given the necessity
> of bypassing Lorien on the west, was by way of Orthanc's palantir, and
> by carrier-crow.
I agree about the carrier-crow. The problem arises since already
according to UT's Hunt for the Ring Saruman has already lied about
Gandalf and hidden information from Sauron and his servants, and
according to the same text Sauron already mistrusts him. While that
palantir might be the quickest way to get intel there is no guarantee
that someone whom you already mistrust is going to give you that
information, or give it to you unfiltered.
Whatever the reason, T doesn't say anything about
> messages going to DG. One might suppose that those few Mordor-Orcs like
> Grishnakh who were "cleared" for Ring-related information were all at
> Lugburz.
And that's likely, though do the Moria orcs know about the Ring even
after the Fellowship pass through? Gandalf and his fall, certainly, and
even later the balrog's fall, ok; but there isn't anything to suggest
that they know about the Ring. Thus, this objection seems to fall
rather flat. If Nazgul are at Dol Guldur, it still (quite apart from
the Scheme) would make better sense then to send info there since the 9
are cleared for Ring intel, know about hobbits, and would be able to
keep a closer eye on Lorien and anyone departing from there while
waiting for further instructions via carrier bird from the Tower. I
wonder that Tolkien doesn't seem to have considered that, at least at
the time that he wrote the sketch.
>>
>>> As to Sarn Gebir: as I think I mentioned before (maybe not)- this
>>> is one strange place to set up a ferry-station. A major-league
>>> boat-killing rapid, which nobody has ever survived in the dark? To
>>> use as a nighttime boat-crossing?
>>> But the more I look the more I believe Sarn Gebir was a rendezvous,
>>> ambush site, and point for *Nazgul-hauling* of small parties across
>>> Anduin. It seems to me that Grishnakh had few if any companions up
>>> until he rejoined Ugluk outside Fangorn- he was a scout. For Feb
>>> 27, the "new" twoscore Mordor-orcs, the Scheme says "Nazgul sets
>>> his Orcs across the River." It seems as if the crossing-pont here
>>> was by beast, not boat.
>>
>>
>> How have you concluded this from that statement? It doesn't follow
>> that "set" means beast rather than boat, and one notes if "by
>> beast", Grishnakh is on foot. Are you saying that they rode with the
>> Nazgul on his winged steed?
>
>
> Or were carried talon-wise.
The beast doesn't seem to have been that big. Say at most it can carry
2 orcs at a time, that's a minimum of 20 trips across the river. Seems
to me a boat or two or canoes might be a better way to get 40 orcs over
the river, always assuming that terror of being so close to a Nazgul
wouldn't simply overcome the orcs he's transporting.
Or perhaps there were boats, despite the
> danger- but not in any great numbers. Mark Boromir: "no boat can live
> in Sarn Gebir, be it night or day."
Boats tend not to live in the middle of a river. They live on shore and
are used on the river to go up it, down it, or across it.
Certainly the Moria-orcs in the
> quarrel believe the River is uncrossable- they say their numbers are
> not great enough "to venture down to the bridges,"
We actually don't know to whom that voice belongs, it is said to be
simply "another voice said", so you don't know if its an Isengarder, a
Moria orc, or a Mordor, and so no conclusions may be drawn on this score.
and Grishnakh's
> response is to bring up the Ringwraith, not boats.
Um, no. Grishnakh says, "I came across...A winged Nazgul awaits us
northward ON THE EAST BANK," emphasis mine. Grishnakh's expectation is
not only to cross the Great River with the prisoners, but with the whole
troop and to meet up with the Nazgul on the east side.
In II/10, Aragorn
> says he has never heard of Orcs on Amon Hen, but who knows "now that
> Minas Tirith no longer holds secure the passages of Anduin." The
> "passages" A. is speaking of would have to lie below Entwash to fall
> within MT's ambit.
Yes, and he also says earlier that he has not traveled these lands by
water and does not know them well...i. e. his statement there is not
definitive, esp. since we know that there are passages that are being
used by orcs.
>>
>> Again, Grishnakh earlier says "*I* came across", not "we",
>>
>>> and when he brings up the Nazgul waiting the Moria-orcs object that
>>> Grishnakh will "fly away with our prisoners" and claim the credit.
>>
>>
>> True, but Grishnakh was not alone in assaulting the Fellowship.
>> Rereading the final chapter of Book II again I note that it is clear
>> that there were two waves: the Mordor wave that was largely repulsed
>> and the Isengard wave reinforced with Moria orcs that was
>> successful. On retreat, what was left of the Mordor wave combined
>> with the other and in spite of Grishnakh's efforts, there was a
>> quarrel. The Mordor wave wasn't encamped on the west side of the
>> river, they had to have come across at some point, either with
>> Grishnakh or sometime later to join with him. Since from Hunt for
>> the Ring we know that things are ferried across at Sarn Gebir, it
>> seems reasonable to suppose that orcs can be so ferried as
>> well...particularly since neither Gondor nor Rohan guards the area.
>>
>
> I'm not sure I get that impression from II/10: the attack hasn't
> happened yet!
Well, you're correct that I've the chapter incorrect, but wrong that the
attack hasn't happened yet....it is in process at the end of the
chapter, Frodo hears the noise of it.
In III/1 there is (the aftermath of) a single fight, in
> which Boromir fell. According to Aragorn, there are dead Moria-Orcs
> here, as well as four Isengarders, and the plainest interpretation of
> his words would indeed place Mordor corpses there as well. Pippin's
> recollection is that Boromir at first made the Orcs draw back, but then
> they closed again,; I don't see two "waves," and certainly no mention
> of different composition. But rereading Book III/3 one gets the decided
> feel that Grishnakh is the only Mordor-orc present at the quarrel. He
> calls himself "their trusted *messenger*", and when Pippin looks he
> sees U. and G. surrounded by "many smaller goblins. Pippin supposed
> that these were the ones from the North"
First, at the beginning of this chapter, Pippin recalls that he and
Merry run into a group of orcs in the woods, who when they notice the
hobbits yell for reinforcements which do come. In the meantime Merry
lops off some arms and hands, and then Boromir comes and slays that
group of orcs. The three begin to go back to the river when they
encounter Ugluk's group. I. E. 2 groups, probably of different composition.
Second, 2 of Grishnakh's companions are beheaded by Ugluk, unless you
think those two who are standing with Grishnakh (and the "several"
others are those that Grishnakh has convinced among the Moria and
Isengard orcs with his superior rhetorical skills. Besides, the Moria
orcs were likely Mordor orcs to begin with as Gandalf notes. WHen
Grishnakh later returns he says he came back because there were some
good fellows that he didn't want to lose, he is not likely referring to
Isengarders, but must be referring to Mordor orcs of his command or
Moria orcs. We know from the Sketch that you cited that Grishnakh is
"reinforced" BEFORE the attack on the hobbits (See Feb. 2). Unless all
those were killed by Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli, some must either have
left with Grishnakh, or remained in Ugluk's troop waiting for Grish to
return.
(and in III/2 Aragorn IDs the
> dead as Northerners)
As Northerners from far away, not as Northerners from Moria.
G then slips away; no followers are mentioned.
> Only when G. re-appears two days later does Pippin notice "there was
> Grishnakh again, and at his back a couple of score of others like him:
> long-armed crook-legged Orcs. They had a red eye painted on their
> shields." To my eye at least the implication is that Grishnakh's
> followers were new to Pippin; that they had not been present at the
> quarrel. Presumably these are the Orcs the Nazgul "set" across Aduin
> the night of the 27th.
Look at your own sketch. G. is reinforced on Feb 2. On Feb 22,
Grishnakh has SCOUTS. On Feb. 23, it is said that G pushes down the
west shore in pursuit of the Fellowship...I doubt even G. is so proud as
to think he can do that alone, he likely has a small company with him,
anymore than the next entry that Ugluk and G meet up and go together to
search for the Company means that it was only G and U. Now we can
imagine that all of G's orcs are killed in the scuffle capturing M and
P, BUT the point I was making with G and his orcs is that getting a
small company of orcs across the river NORTH of the bridges at
Osgiliath, and BEFORE the opening of war is not only possible, but was
obviously done as the sketch itself bears out time and again.
>
> My hypothesis therefore is that the reinforcements Grishnakh received
> on the 24th were for the purpose of setting the ambush at Sarn Gebir.
> When this failed, Grishnakh alone ("trusted messenger") or with a
> handful of companions crossed the river, trailed the Company, and
> encountered Ugluk's force whom they put on the scent. If there were
> companions G. brought across with him, Boromir, Legolas or Gimli must
> have killed them for Aragorn to observe, since he had none by the night
> of the 26th. The bulk of G's command (40 Orcs of the Eye) remained on
> the east bank until he came back for orders on the night of 27/28 Feb.
I have no major problem with this. But as I retrace our discussion, the
point I was illustrating is that Moria messengers would have been able
to cross the river and deliver messages to the east bank without
difficulty since we see other crossings of orcs over Anduin in small
companies as well, and Grishnakh's multiple crossings illustrate this well.
>
>>
>>> You mention later river-crossings,
>>
>>
>> Some are later, some are earlier.
>>
>> but I would point out that they were
>>
>>> *part of the war*- combat crossings under fire, by way of Cair
>>> Andros and Osgiliath, and into Lorien.
>>
>>
>> There's no evidence that the assaults on Lorien and Rohan came
>> through Osgiliath.
>
>
> That's not what I was saying. The invasion of Rohan came by way of Cair
> Andros.
No it didn't. The force sitting on the road to Minas Tirith likely used
Cair Andros, but the force invading Rohan on March 11 is said to have
come from the north and that isn't Cair Andros.
The attack on Lorien came out of Southern Mirkwood, presumably
> directly into the Golden Wood (else Silverlode would have been an
> effective barrier).
Not likely--first if they can manage to cross Anduin, crossing the
Silverlode is not going to present difficulties. And the Silverlode
goes through Lothlorien, they can certainly invade directly across or
from the north and not have the Silverlode be a problem at all. But the
opint is in both cases, a major crossing of the Anduin. If they have
the logistics to get major forces across the river, they have the
logistics to send small companies of raiders (Rohan's horses) and spys
and scouts and messengers.
But they were all contested assault landings,
That's not what the texts tell us.
not
> easy ferry-crossings.
Immaterial to the point I was making.
The only hostile crossing of the Anduin prior to
> the War of the Ring was that of the Balchoth, who crossed at the
> Undeeps on many rafts.
Again, not what the texts tell us, unless you think the orcs raiding
Rohan's horses from across the river were actually camped somewhere on
the west side.
>
> You're perhaps underestimating the magnitude of the effort involved in
> moving significant numbers of troops across a major river-barrier in
> rowboats. Washington's famed crossing of the (smaller) Delaware took
> ten hours- without killer rapids. Napoleon's campaign marches focused
> very largely on securing, destroying, and building bridges- boats just
> weren't an option. In classical times the Rhine was an absolute block,
> except when the Romans built a bridge- or the famous occasion in 406-7
> when it froze, precipitating the crisis of the Western Empire.
You're perhaps overestimating the ease involved in moving a small number
of troops, or even a single one across a major river barrier whether in
canoe, row boat, raft, bridge, rope bridge, fallen logs etc. This whole
discussion began because I remarked that getting messages to Dol Guldur
across the Anduin wasn't a major problem, esp. since we see multiple
crossings (and we do) of orc units both large and small. You've
provided the evidence yourself. Further, if we pull in the Sketch's
messenger birds, all crossing problems solved.
So the problem is why trust Saruman at this point? We either have to
accept the sketch's account that Saruman was not distrusted yet, or we
have to accept the Hunt for the Ring's explicit statements that Sauron
distrusted Saruman as early as the rescue of Gollum and on the return of
the W-K from the hunt for the ring.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
[Dol Guldur]
> [The Nazgul] are cleared for Ring intel, know about hobbits, and would
> be able to keep a closer eye on Lorien and anyone departing from there
> while waiting for further instructions via carrier bird from the Tower. I
> wonder that Tolkien doesn't seem to have considered that, at least at
> the time that he wrote the sketch.
Possibly Galadriel's power is so great that the Nazgul in Dol Guldur are
fully deceived about what is going on. Dol Guldur is effectively neutralised
as an effective base for operations by its proximity to Lorien. It is
probably used to carry out operations in Mirkwood, rather than west, across
the River. Then, once war in Mirkwood breaks out, and that happens rather
early on if I recall, Dol Guldur is fully occupied, and possibly at this
time is occupied with preparations for the battle (both against Lorien and
against Mirkwood). There is also an interesting point here about how to get
an army across the Anduin. Clever Celeborn!
11 March - "First assault on Lorien."
15 March - (Battle of the Pelennor) "Battle under the trees in Mirkwood;
Thranduil repels the forces of Dol Guldur. Second assault on Lorien."
22 March - "Third assault on Lorien."
"Three times Lorien had been assailed from Dol Guldur. [...] Though grievous
harm was done to the fair woods on the borders, the assaults were driven
back; and when the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of
Lorien over Anduin in many boats. They took Dol Guldur, and Galadriel threw
down its walls and laid bare its pits, and the forest was cleansed.
In the North also there had been war and evil. The realm of Thranduil was
invaded. and there was long battle under the trees and great ruin of
fire..." (Appendix B)
So Dol Guldur is not exactly inactive, but seems to have been occupied in
its own preparations for the forthcoming war, and was probably too close to
Lorien to be usefully used as a base for scouting and spying the surrounding
area.
But you are right, none of this is clear from the text, and it is not clear
how Tolkien would have answered your concerns.
Christopher
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
{snippage of much cogent commentary, even if I don't necessarily concede
all points! :) But I will agree that small parties of Bad Guys could get
across the Anduin.
>
> So the problem is why trust Saruman at this point? We either have to
> accept the sketch's account that Saruman was not distrusted yet, or we
> have to accept the Hunt for the Ring's explicit statements that Sauron
> distrusted Saruman as early as the rescue of Gollum and on the return of
> the W-K from the hunt for the ring.
>
The real explanation of course is external: when Tolkien made his
time-scheme, during the writing of the Lord of the Rings, he hadn't yet
thought of the W-K's capture of the Isengarder, since The Hunt for the
Ring was written concomitant with the Appendices a decade later.
Whatever his changing later conceptions, Tolkien couldn't get around the
fact that Ugluk and Grishnakh were acting more-or-less in concert, despite
mutual mistrust (on their part and their masters'). Under the later
(HftR) conception, I would suggest Sauron found Saruman useful, even if he
didn't trust him a lick. Perhaps Sauron was supremely confident that,
whatever little sneakeries Saruman might engage in, the Dark Lord had
sufficient power of mental domination that he could call a mere Wizard to
heel at will: his message to Pippin in the Palantir implies that Sauron
expected Saruman simply to hand over the prisoners when the United Nazgul
Service came for them. As events turned out, Sauron was looking at a
situation where Saruman could bring more force to bear, and so he was
forced to make use of him, untrustworthy or not. If you've played
Diplomacy or its variants I'm sure you've been in the position of having
to cooperate with somebody you wouldn't trust to guard snow in Siberia.
Sure, if I were wargaming this I would have stuffed Dol Guldur with recon
units and light infantry, but for whatever reason Sauron (Tolkien)
didn't. Perhaps Sauron was just stupid. :)
A thought: what if the river marked a sort of frontier between the
"allies'" agreed spheres of influence? In other words, the west bank was
Saruman's turf (for now), an idea to be reflected later in the Mouth's
peace terms; Sauron would send "liason officers" like Grishnakh over, and
even horse-rustlers, but wouldn't step on Saruman's toes by sending
significant forces (for now). This might underlie Grishnakh's resentment
of Saruman's "setting up on his own with his filthy white badges:" a
bluntminded loyalist like G wouldn't like the Eye having allies rather
than mere subjects. But Saruman saw that Saruman needed a fairly loose
rein (for now). Remember- Sauron knew that Saruman was cheating him, but
Saruman *didn't* know that Sauron knew. It was I expect convenient for
Sauron to keep that card close to his vest for a while- certainly until
after Rohan was eliminated. Sort of like Michael Corleone ;)
As to Grishnakh's numbers: the TS entry for Feb 23 reads:
"Orcs are foiled. Legolas shoots down the Nazgul. The Orcs dismayed, but
Grishnakh crosses Anduin and *daringly* pushes down west shore in pursuit."
Why was this daring? Only if one supposes that G. thought the Fellowship
a serious threat, which I think argues that he was alone or accompanied
only by a few scouts. (Additionally, although you're absolutely right
that convention often designates a force by its leader's name, in this
particular sentence it's odd to write out "Grishnakh" if "they" would
suffice.) I won't repeat my citations, but simply enquire: who else would
the victims of the quarrel be, but Moria orcs? Pippin thought so, Aragorn
said they were "Northerners" (what else could he have meant?), at least
one of the "voices" plainly is, and the other plainly doesn't accept
Grishnakh's authority, and throughout Pippin's narrative "Notherners"
means the Orcs of Moria ("half-trained mountain-maggots" who "can see
like gimlets in the dark.") Nor do I think Orcs of the Eye would have
followed Ugluk when their own captain departed: to me, at least, "good
lads" simply means Ugluk's troops, who are plainly quality grunts whatever
G. thinks of their leader. So, I suggest again, to the extent Grishnakh
was accompanied, his followers must have been slain at Amon Hen. Perhaps
they were braver than the mountain-maggots, but not as tough as the
Isengarders.
Bringing all this back to the original topic, the absence of Mordor-orcs
at the quarrel would be significant to Ugluk's boast, "We are the fighting
Uruk-hai!" in the sense that (G excepted) there are no other uruks present.
William Cloud Hicklin
<icelof...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Ugluk and Grishnakh were acting more-or-less in concert, despite mutual
> mistrust (on their part and their masters'
Another point- Orcs *always* mistrusted each other, but managed somehow to
cooperate.
Larry Swain
> In article <YZ6dnQQoALm6-k3Y...@rcn.net>,
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Odysseus wrote:
>>
>>>In article <25-dnSzeBvtNPlLY...@rcn.net>,
>>> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>Help no doubt was sent out to the other Ringwraiths as they made
>>>>>their way beck, and they were bidden to remain secret again. It
>>>>>was no doubt at the end of 1418 that Sauron bethough him of the
>>>>>winged mounts;
>>>>
>>>>3018 perhaps?
>>>
>>>The year 1418 in the Shire Reckoning is elsewhere known as T.A. 3018
>>>(Stewards' Reckoning). The Shire was founded in T.A. 1600.
>>>
>>
>>Point, but I wasn't aware that Sauron counted years in SR.
>
>
> Non sequitur; he may not have used Stewards' Reckoning either. (AFAIK
> the text is silent on the calendar used in Mordor.)
Ok, fair enough.
Anyway, when we read
> that Julius Cęsar was assassinated in 44 BC, there's no implication
> that's what _he_ would have called the year. Unless there are
> indications otherwise, I would assume any of Tolkien's historical notes
> to be from the POV of hobbit historians, among whom the use of SR would
> be only natural.
>
Except that almost all the dates he gives, including the entire Tale of
Years in Appendix B is NOT given in SR and from the POV of hobbit
historians.
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
Again, the whole business of multiple calendars arose after the main
narrative was completed- throughout the writing of the LR (which was when
he made the Scheme) Tolkien used dates of 14xx form- what would eventually
be the year-count of the Shire Reckoning. I suspect, but can find no
evidence, that these dates accorded with Tolkien's earlier, briefer
conception of the length of the Third Age.
Larry Swain
No, Dol Guldur is very active (nice understatement there
Christopher...;) ) but as for being TOO ACTIVE, wouldn't the presence of
hobbits and the Ring in Lothlorien be just a tad important for Dol
Guldur's preparations? Even if the Moria orcs don't know about the
Ring, the fact that the Tower is looking for hobbits and these hobbits
are known to have been in the company of Gandalf, the Tower and
certainly Dol Guldur would certainly have been wondering if they had
brought the Ring to Galadriel and if their long stay there might in fact
be Galadriel attempting to master the Ring to overthrow Sauron.
Besides Saruman and Sauron were both rather busy preparing for war
themselves, but not too busy for this news, why would we assume that Dol
Guldur, esp if Nazgul were there, be too busy to keep an eye on those
hobbitses? No, while your reasoning is plausible here, in this case, I
don't find it a likely way of letting Tolkien off the hook....I guess
I've come to see that a) he didn't write the story that way and b) I
think that it should have occurred to him and wonder if it did and he
rejected it for some reasons that I haven't see yet. In any case.....
Christopher Kreuzer
> No, Dol Guldur is very active (nice understatement there
> Christopher...;) )
But let's not forget what I pointed out here;
"Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lorien over Anduin in many boats"
That must be relevant to what you and William were discussing.
Christopher
Larry Swain
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:35:50 -0500, Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>
> {snippage of much cogent commentary, even if I don't necessarily
> concede all points! :) But I will agree that small parties of Bad Guys
> could get across the Anduin.
>
>>
>> So the problem is why trust Saruman at this point? We either have to
>> accept the sketch's account that Saruman was not distrusted yet, or
>> we have to accept the Hunt for the Ring's explicit statements that
>> Sauron distrusted Saruman as early as the rescue of Gollum and on the
>> return of the W-K from the hunt for the ring.
>>
>
> The real explanation of course is external:
All too true, and I'm aware of that. I was more referring to the fact
that further up the thread you and I were making point and counter point
by drawing on two contradictory sources written by the same hand: the
Sketch says that Saruman was still trusted, the Hunt for the Ring says
he wasn't. These are reconciliable, but I don't know that we need that
or that such a a reconciliation is fool proof.
> A thought: what if the river marked a sort of frontier between the
> "allies'" agreed spheres of influence? In other words, the west bank
> was Saruman's turf (for now), an idea to be reflected later in the
> Mouth's peace terms; Sauron would send "liason officers" like Grishnakh
> over, and even horse-rustlers, but wouldn't step on Saruman's toes by
> sending significant forces (for now). This might underlie Grishnakh's
> resentment of Saruman's "setting up on his own with his filthy white
> badges:" a bluntminded loyalist like G wouldn't like the Eye having
> allies rather than mere subjects. But Saruman saw that Saruman needed a
> fairly loose rein (for now). Remember- Sauron knew that Saruman was
> cheating him, but Saruman *didn't* know that Sauron knew. It was I
> expect convenient for Sauron to keep that card close to his vest for a
> while- certainly until after Rohan was eliminated. Sort of like Michael
> Corleone ;)
That's an interesting take, although one would have to limit it more
than just the Anduin: Lothlorien and Minas Tirith are obviously in
"Sauron's territory" under this scheme.
>
>
>
> As to Grishnakh's numbers: the TS entry for Feb 23 reads:
>
> "Orcs are foiled. Legolas shoots down the Nazgul. The Orcs dismayed,
> but Grishnakh crosses Anduin and *daringly* pushes down west shore in
> pursuit."
>
> Why was this daring?
Earlier, it says that the Rohirrim repulse and chase off Ugluk and gang
doesn't it? This is daring because he has a small force and may be
intercepted by the Rohirrim.
Only if one supposes that G. thought the
> Fellowship a serious threat, which I think argues that he was alone or
> accompanied only by a few scouts. (Additionally, although you're
> absolutely right that convention often designates a force by its
> leader's name, in this particular sentence it's odd to write out
> "Grishnakh" if "they" would suffice.)
But he uses Grishnakh and Ugluk throughout to designate both the leaders
and their troops.
I won't repeat my citations, but
> simply enquire: who else would the victims of the quarrel be, but Moria
> orcs? Pippin thought so, Aragorn said they were "Northerners" (what
> else could he have meant?), at least one of the "voices" plainly is,
> and the other plainly doesn't accept Grishnakh's authority, and
> throughout Pippin's narrative "Notherners" means the Orcs of Moria
> ("half-trained mountain-maggots" who "can see like gimlets in the
> dark.")
True, on the other hand, Aragorn says "Northerners from far away" which
is an odd way to describe Moria orcs, even in that chapter.
Nor do I think Orcs of the Eye would have followed Ugluk when
> their own captain departed: to me, at least, "good lads" simply means
> Ugluk's troops, who are plainly quality grunts whatever G. thinks of
> their leader.
That's a possible interpretation. But I doubt that G if he yet had
troops would have left P and M entirely in Ugluk's hands while he went
off to get more instructions. In the confusion its likely that as he
slips into the shadow his men have either previously been instructed or
he gets one aside before he takes off and says "lay low, keep a sharp
eye on the prisoners until I return, I'll meet you as soon as I can."
So, I suggest again, to the extent Grishnakh was
> accompanied, his followers must have been slain at Amon Hen. Perhaps
> they were braver than the mountain-maggots, but not as tough as the
> Isengarders.
Yes, as I said, a very possible interpretation, perhaps even probable.
>
> Bringing all this back to the original topic, the absence of
> Mordor-orcs at the quarrel would be significant to Ugluk's boast, "We
> are the fighting Uruk-hai!" in the sense that (G excepted) there are no
> other uruks present.
Maybe. On the other hand, such a boast to me makes more sense if there
were G's men present...it isn't a stand alone statement, but is
accompanied by pointing out that G's troop failed, that it was Ugluk's
who slew the great warrior, actually got the prisoners and pulled the
rest of their bacon out of the fire.
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> As to Grishnakh's numbers: the TS entry for Feb 23 reads:
> "Orcs are foiled. Legolas shoots down the Nazgul. The Orcs dismayed,
> but Grishnakh crosses Anduin and *daringly* pushes down west shore in
> pursuit."
> Why was this daring? Earlier, it says that the Rohirrim repulse and
> chase off Ugluk and gang doesn't it? This is daring because he has a
> small force and may be intercepted by the Rohirrim.
But not in the Emyn Muil. The Wall is Rohan's border, at least on the
map; and Aragorn says "The Rohirrim seldom come here." Eomer moves when
the raiders "descend from the Emyn Muil" (App. B): and rugged hills are
lousy cavalry terrain.
Larry Swain
is a barrier, it isn't that much of a barrier.
Larry Swain
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:41:08 -0500, Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> As to Grishnakh's numbers: the TS entry for Feb 23 reads:
>> "Orcs are foiled. Legolas shoots down the Nazgul. The Orcs dismayed,
>> but Grishnakh crosses Anduin and *daringly* pushes down west shore
>> in pursuit."
>> Why was this daring? Earlier, it says that the Rohirrim repulse
>> and chase off Ugluk and gang doesn't it? This is daring because he
>> has a small force and may be intercepted by the Rohirrim.
>
>
> But not in the Emyn Muil. The Wall is Rohan's border, at least on the
> map; and Aragorn says "The Rohirrim seldom come here." Eomer moves
> when the raiders "descend from the Emyn Muil" (App. B): and rugged
> hills are lousy cavalry terrain.
>
Good points. I don't know that G would think the fellowship that much
of a threat though, but more to the point the "daringly" refers to his
pushing down the west shore. If the Fellowship were a threat, they too
would have to be on the west shore, they can't be much of threat while
still on the river since most hands are going to be active steering the
canoes. So I can only imagine it is daring for some other reason,
namely the Rohirrim who "seldom" come, but seemingly have done so
recently in the case of Ugluk.
T.M. Sommers
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:43:30 -0500, T.M. Sommers <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't forget, though, that Darius built a pontoon bridge across the
>> Bosporus, and Xerxes built one (actually 4) across the Hellespont.
>> Any of the people of Middle-earth would have been able to bridge any
>> Middle-earth river if they had wanted to.
>
> Using how many thousands of men? Darius and Xerxes used vast
> manpower. When Caesar bridged the Rhine he had four legions at work on
> it for weeks. That Sauron could do this for a major invasion is
> unquestioned- after all he did repair the bridges at Osgiliath-
My only point was that the building of temporary bridges was not
beyond the technological capabilities of the inhabitants of
Middle-earth. Rivers, even large rivers, were not uncrossable
barriers.
> but
> simply for raiders and scouts?
The discussion here also included the movements of armies, as I
understood it.
> At any rate, Tolkien only mentions the
> existence of one bridge over Anduin, and two fords over its upper course.
That doesn't mean that other bridges could not have been built.
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> Which again raises the question of why go to Saruman at all. If
> messages can get straight to central command, and then instructions
> disseminated to Saruman, to Dol Guldur, to other Moria etc, why report
> to Saruman at all, it certainly didn't make things easier. And it is
> clear from the chronology that you posted that though Ugluk and
> Grishnakh exchange some news before the capture of Merry and Pippin, it
> is also clear that they are not working together or in tandem.
Here we're descending into rankest speculation, but what the hell. It
might be imagined that Sauron and Saruman have (rival) liaison detachments
in Moria, both trying to co-opt the locals, or at least keep an eye on
things (the Moria orcs appear to be more co-belligerents than subjects; at
least later one declares that their only reason for pursuing the
Fellowship is revenge, not the larger war). Saruman at least seems to have
been somewhat successful, insofar as Ugluk manages to recruit a very
substantial body of them- and this despite the "uruks of Mordor" we know
to be present. In this case it's not a question of Sauron trusting Saruman
at all- he can't do anything about Saruman's independent intelligence
network.
Now let's venture onto the very thin ice of the draft texts- hazardous
because T always could have changed his mind later. But sometimes his
early versions may illuminate points the final text is more ambiguous
about. So here goes:
Outline for Ch. III/1 [TI pp 378-9]: "Trotter sees by the shape and arms
of the dead orcs that they are northern orcs of the Misty Mountains - from
Moria? In fact they are orcs of Moria that escaped the elves, + others who
are servants of _Sauruman_. They report to Saruman that Gandalf is dead.
Their mission is to capture hobbits _including Frodo_ and take them to
Isengard. Saruman is playing a double game and wants the Ring."
First draft of Ch. III/1 [TI pp.381-2]: "'These are not orcs of Mordor,'
said Trotter. 'Some are from the Misty Mountains, if I know anything of
orcs and their [gear >] kinds; maybe they have come all the way from
Moria. But what are these? Their gear is not all of goblin-make.' There
were several orcs of large stature......" Following the discussion of the
S-runes, Trotter goes on: "'I guess that some of our pursuers escaped the
vigilance of Lorien or avoided that land, passing through the foothills,
and that Saruman also knows of or journey, and maybe of Gandalf's fall.'"
(It should be remembered that at this stage of the writing, no outside
time passed while the Company was in Lorien, so the Moria-orcs would
indeed have been "pursuing;" not, as in the Time-scheme of Oct '44,
waiting around for a month.)
So far the picture is pretty unambiguous: the Orc-band is made up of
Isengarders plus Moria-orcs: Mordor-orcs are expressly not present. But
the good Professor wouldn't make things that easy for his geekier fans,
would he?
Therefore the outline for III/3 [TI p. 408]: "Some want to go North Some
say go straight to Mordor. The great orcs were ordered to go to
Isengard....Fight breaks out....Isengarders win. Mordor orcs are killed.
They start on. Leader called Ugluk [i.e. the later Grishnakh] leaves
them...." Oddly, this outline doesn't mention "Ugluk's" return, although
he still attempts to spirit M&P away from the battle.
Arrgggh! What are we to make of this? Since the slain orcs are later
unambiguously Northern, I suppose I could claim that "Mordor" was a slip
for "Moria" (or CT misreading a scrawl)--but that would be cheatin'. And
of course Ugluk > Grishnakh remains a Mordor-orc. TT does have the
interesting reading later "a quarrel seemed on the point of breaking out
*again* between the Northerners and the Isengarders:" which reinforces
Aragorn's observation that the previous quarrel had been between the same
parties.
Another outline written at the point where Merry is dosed includes
"Grishnak brings a small company of Mordor-orcs from the East. Ugluk
evidently does not like it." One thing this tells us is that this "small
company" are indeed newcomers- but then we had deduced that already from
the Scheme (admittedly written 3 years later).
There is perhaps an echo of this in a very cryptic line in TT: when the
Northerners have run on ahead, Ugluk says, "Now we'll deal with
Grishnakh." What does he mean? This is just before G reappears on the
page, but after the Isengarders have spotted his approach. Could U.
deliberately have got rid of the Northerners to deprive the returning G.
of allies? One theory might be that G came back specifically to wrest the
prisoners from the Isengarders, bringing reinforcements to stiffen the
unreliable Northerners, and Ugluk, who's no fool, anticipates this.
A minor point- after G's return, but not before, Tolkien continuously
gives us a tripartite orc-band: "the Isengarders gradually passed through
the Orcs of Mordor...Soon they were gaining also on the Northerners
ahead;" "The Isengarders began to run with a redoubled pace...The soldiers
of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed;" "'You're as
bad as the other rabble: the maggots and the apes of Lugburz.'"
William Cloud Hicklin
> At any rate, Tolkien only mentions the existence of one bridge over
> Anduin, and two fords over its upper course.
> That doesn't mean that other bridges could not have been built.
Well, during the quarrel among the Orc-band in the Emyn Muil, one of the
Moria-orcs objects that they're not numerous enough to "venture down to
the bridges." I'm not sure that this could refer to anything but
Osgiliath, since we know there's no bridge between Silverlode and Rauros,
the Wetwang/Entwash system isn't suitable (in drafts, Trotter observes
that if they go west they would have to skirt the marshes by going far up
Entwash), and Cair Andros at this time is still held by Gondor. More to
the point- I can't imagine Gondor and Rohan allowing bridge-building into
their territory to proceed uncontested! Osgiliath is the one place we know
the Enemy to have a bridgehead. While undoubtedly when Sauron launched the
War his military engineers employed both pontoon bridges and assault
barges, this was in the context of a fullblown offensive.
We do however have to allow for the possibility of forcing the Undeeps:"
"the great loops of the Anduin had many shallows and wide shoals over
which a determined or well-equipped enemy could force a crossing by rafts
or pontoons." Gondor's Narmacil I had fortified the west bank there.
Although the Balchoth used rafts, the clear implication of "Cirion and
Eorl" is that the Eotheod simply crossed them on horseback. It may be that
the Undeeps were a suitable ford for mounted men, but not infantry.
Perhaps this was the route taken for the attacks on Lorien- still, the
enemy would have to be "determined or well-equipped."
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> Bringing all this back to the original topic, the absence of
> Mordor-orcs at the quarrel would be significant to Ugluk's boast, "We
> are the fighting Uruk-hai!" in the sense that (G excepted) there are no
> other uruks present.
> Maybe. On the other hand, such a boast to me makes more sense if there
> were G's men present...it isn't a stand alone statement, but is
> accompanied by pointing out that G's troop failed, that it was Ugluk's
> who slew the great warrior, actually got the prisoners and pulled the
> rest of their bacon out of the fire.
Returning us to the linguistic problem: the application of "Uruk-hai." I
think the boast works just as well or better if the intended audience are
the mountain-maggots, who clearly resent Captain Ugluk: "Curse the
Isengarders! Ugluk u bagronk sha pushdug Saruman-glob bubhosh skai."
Again, I have to raise at least the implication, if not the unequivocal
statement (naturally), of Pippin's description of the Northerners' flight
towards Fangorn: "most of the Northerners broke away...the Hobbits were
left with the Isengarders...a few of the larger and bolder Northerners
remained with them." I don't see Mordor-orcs here. /Then/ Grishnakh
appears with "a couple of score of others like him: long-armed
crook-legged Orcs. They had a red eye painted on their shields;" which to
my knowledge is the first mention of the Eye, or of other Orcs who
resemble Grishnakh: if similar lads had been there all along, why would
Pippin register a description now? And in the conversation that follows,
with Mordor-orcs unequivocally present, Ugluk refers to his bunch not just
as "the Uruk-hai" but as "the Uruk-hai of Isengard."
[Sheesh. I think debating Talmud would be easier, if I happened to know
Hebrew].
T.M. Sommers
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:17:07 -0500, T.M. Sommers <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
>> At any rate, Tolkien only mentions the existence of one bridge over
>> Anduin, and two fords over its upper course.
>> That doesn't mean that other bridges could not have been built.
>
> Well, during the quarrel among the Orc-band in the Emyn Muil, one of
> the Moria-orcs objects that they're not numerous enough to "venture
> down to the bridges." I'm not sure that this could refer to anything
> but Osgiliath, since we know there's no bridge between Silverlode and
> Rauros, the Wetwang/Entwash system isn't suitable (in drafts, Trotter
> observes that if they go west they would have to skirt the marshes by
> going far up Entwash), and Cair Andros at this time is still held by
> Gondor.
I think we are talking past each other here. I am not saying
that bridges were used in every crossing, or even used at all;
just that they could have been used.
> More to the point- I can't imagine Gondor and Rohan allowing
> bridge-building into their territory to proceed uncontested!
Successful bridging would depend on speed and surprise. We know
that the Anduin, for instance, was not garrisoned along its whole
length, since the fellowship encountered no one on their trip.
We also have no evidence that the river was even kept under
watch. Even if it were, a crossing could probably be made in the
time it took for word to reach Gondor or Rohan and troops to then
reach the crossing point.
Note also that in pre-firearms days, defenders could not do much
to prevent bridge construction until it reached to within bowshot
of the defenders' shore. Assuming the attackers had local naval
superiority on the river; without that, they could not build a
bridge at all.
William Cloud Hicklin
> Successful bridging would depend on speed and surprise. We know that
> the Anduin, for instance, was not garrisoned along its whole length,
> since the fellowship encountered no one on their trip. We also have no
> evidence that the river was even kept under watch. Even if it were, a
> crossing could probably be made in the time it took for word to reach
> Gondor or Rohan and troops to then reach the crossing point.
Agreed. However, if that had been the case prior to, say, Pippin's
arrival at MT, surely mention of such an attack (and an unreduced defended
bridgehead) surely would have been mentioned, wouldn't it?
Larry Swain
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:41:08 -0500, Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bringing all this back to the original topic, the absence of
>> Mordor-orcs at the quarrel would be significant to Ugluk's boast,
>> "We are the fighting Uruk-hai!" in the sense that (G excepted) there
>> are no other uruks present.
>> Maybe. On the other hand, such a boast to me makes more sense if
>> there were G's men present...it isn't a stand alone statement, but
>> is accompanied by pointing out that G's troop failed, that it was
>> Ugluk's who slew the great warrior, actually got the prisoners and
>> pulled the rest of their bacon out of the fire.
>
>
> Returning us to the linguistic problem: the application of "Uruk-hai." I
> think the boast works just as well or better if the intended audience are
> the mountain-maggots, who clearly resent Captain Ugluk: "Curse the
> Isengarders! Ugluk u bagronk sha pushdug Saruman-glob bubhosh skai."
It does work well but just to be clear the difference here is not
between "mountain maggots" and Mordor orcs, but rather between ONLY
Moria orcs and Moria Orcs and Mordor orcs, in so far as those groups can
be distinguished here since we know that at least some of those in Moria
were from Mordor. I'm simply suggesting that it is possible to read the
text as Grishnakh still having at least a few of his command left from
the assault on the Fellowship, and certainly the "Northerners" seem more
inclined to Grishnakh than Ugluk in either case.
Further, the claim that it was the Uruk-hai, i. e. in this case the
Isengarders, who slew the great warrior etc, it suggests that those who
did the slaying and the snatching WERE NOT WITH Ugluk during the melee,
and we know that the Moria orcs were in fact with Ugluk. So Ugluk must
have been standing around counting which of the Northerners were doing
what and which Isengarder was doing what in order for the claim to have
any teeth, and I just don't picture Ugluk doing that.
> Again, I have to raise at least the implication, if not the unequivocal
> statement (naturally), of Pippin's description of the Northerners' flight
> towards Fangorn: "most of the Northerners broke away...the Hobbits were
> left with the Isengarders...a few of the larger and bolder Northerners
> remained with them." I don't see Mordor-orcs here.
Open your eyes! ;) Sorry, couldn't resist. Remember though that at
least some of the Moria "Northerners" were Mordor orcs, and of course
the problem is Pippin's description: Pippin is somewhat less of an
expert on orcs and their origins than others in the novel. Further, if
the reading I gave yesterday is correct, then the few of G's men left
behind with Ugluk simply were not among those "Northerners" who broke
away and stayed with the Isengarders.
/Then/ Grishnakh
> appears with "a couple of score of others like him: long-armed
> crook-legged Orcs. They had a red eye painted on their shields;" which to
> my knowledge is the first mention of the Eye, or of other Orcs who
> resemble Grishnakh: if similar lads had been there all along, why would
> Pippin register a description now?
He hasn't had the best vantage point as he hismelf admits.
And in the conversation that follows,
> with Mordor-orcs unequivocally present, Ugluk refers to his bunch not just
> as "the Uruk-hai" but as "the Uruk-hai of Isengard."
That's a good point, but holds true only if we give these words an
absolute meaning and assume that Pippin has been able to see and note
every shield and every orc. We know he hasn't. Again, I'm not saying
that your reading is wrong; just suggesting that another is possible.
> [Sheesh. I think debating Talmud would be easier, if I happened to know
> Hebrew].
>
Indeed, there are many analogues.
Larry Swain
Which illustrates my point: G may have had men left from the Parth Galen
affair, if this account lies in back of that in the published book, then
the "Mordor orcs" are killed, except G, during the scuffle, and G takes
off to check in with the Nazgul and is reinforced (though with only 40?
odd).
>
> Arrgggh! What are we to make of this? Since the slain orcs are later
> unambiguously Northern, I suppose I could claim that "Mordor" was a
> slip for "Moria" (or CT misreading a scrawl)--but that would be
> cheatin'. And of course Ugluk > Grishnakh remains a Mordor-orc. TT
> does have the interesting reading later "a quarrel seemed on the point
> of breaking out *again* between the Northerners and the Isengarders:"
> which reinforces Aragorn's observation that the previous quarrel had
> been between the same parties.
It could be a slip. But as I have stated before, I'm not certain how
much of a distinction we can draw between "Moria" orcs and Mordor orcs
other than where they were stationed.
>
> Another outline written at the point where Merry is dosed includes
> "Grishnak brings a small company of Mordor-orcs from the East. Ugluk
> evidently does not like it." One thing this tells us is that this
> "small company" are indeed newcomers- but then we had deduced that
> already from the Scheme (admittedly written 3 years later).
>
> There is perhaps an echo of this in a very cryptic line in TT: when the
> Northerners have run on ahead, Ugluk says, "Now we'll deal with
> Grishnakh." What does he mean? This is just before G reappears on the
> page, but after the Isengarders have spotted his approach. Could U.
> deliberately have got rid of the Northerners to deprive the returning
> G. of allies? One theory might be that G came back specifically to
> wrest the prisoners from the Isengarders, bringing reinforcements to
> stiffen the unreliable Northerners, and Ugluk, who's no fool,
> anticipates this.
Very good reading, I like that part of it.
William Cloud Hicklin
wrote:
> Which illustrates my point: G may have had men left from the Parth Galen
> affair, if this account lies in back of that in the published book, then
> the "Mordor orcs" are killed, except G, during the scuffle, and G takes
> off to check in with the Nazgul and is reinforced (though with only 40?
> odd).
Problematical: see below.
>> Arrgggh! What are we to make of this? Since the slain orcs are later
>> unambiguously Northern, I suppose I could claim that "Mordor" was a
>> slip for "Moria" (or CT misreading a scrawl)--but that would be
>> cheatin'. And of course Ugluk > Grishnakh remains a Mordor-orc. TT
>> does have the interesting reading later "a quarrel seemed on the point
>> of breaking out *again* between the Northerners and the Isengarders:"
>> which reinforces Aragorn's observation that the previous quarrel had
>> been between the same parties.
> It could be a slip. But as I have stated before, I'm not certain how
> much of a distinction we can draw between "Moria" orcs and Mordor orcs
> other than where they were stationed.
That's worth following up. To what extent were the "native" goblins of
Moria semi-independent tribesmen (tribesorcs?), and to what extent
directly in the service of the Dark Tower? The latter reading would
explain away the "slip" referenced above- but then Ugluk's recruiting of
same becomes problematical. The outline also poses a puzzle in that
"Ugluk" (Grishnakh) is said to be a "leader." Of whom? The Moria-orcs?
Doubtful. But then where are the Lugburz troops?
One possible solution would be that this outline for "The Uruk-hai"
actually preceded the writing of "The Riders of Rohan:" at the very least
Tolkien had already conceived the quarrel when he came to write the
earliest extant draft of the latter.
A second possibility is that Tolkien simply was unsure at this point. For
the quarrel to be meaningful there had to be a Mordor-element, and at
first he considered simply converting the Northerners to Mordor-orcs.
A third, again, is that he meant "Moria" all along- either JRRT slipped,
or CT mistook it (take a look at the page reproduced at TI p.383 for an
example of the scrawl he was interpreting).
So here is the conundrum:
1) In the sketch and draft of "The Departure of Boromir," the dead Orcs at
Parth Galen are from Moria and Isengard: Mordor-orcs are expressly *not*
present.
2) In the (second or B) draft of "The Riders of Rohan" "this earliest
extant text is already very close to [TT] in the . . . discovery of the
slain Orcs." (I was mistaken on this yesterday) CT's precis says nothing
of their description.
3) The sketch for "The Uruk-hai" has "Mordor orcs are killed."
4) The draft(s) for III/3 are not given in extenso, but CT comments that
the final form is very largely reached (does that include the citations
we're concerned with??)
4) The final text of III/1 differs slightly from the draft: Aragorn says
"Here lie many that are not folk of Mordor. Some are from the North...
and here are others strange to me" Does this imply Mordor-corpses? At the
very least, the draft's flat denial is absent.
5) In TT III/2 Aragorn specifically identifies the five corpses as
"Northern Orcs from far away."* This might be a repetition of the draft
which escaped revision; but I don't think so, because of what we find in
the next chapter. (I suppose one could suggest "orcs of Mirkwood/Dol
Guldur," but this finds no support in the Time-scheme,** and anyway G's
bunch later are clearly apes of Lugburz.
6) In TT III/3 we get our first eyewitness description of the Orc-band.
Or rather earwitness, since Pippin is listening w/o looking at first. What
he hears is:
Voice 1: No time to kill them slowly.
Voice 2: Kill them quick.
I would guess these are Northerners, since U's bunch (and G's if present)
obviously want them alive- it's what they came for.
Voice 3 (Ugluk): Orders: bring 'em back alive.
Many voices: Why?
Ugluk: Valuable intel
Voice 4: Let's search 'em
Voice 5 (Grishnakh): No.
Ugluk: Ditto.
Voice X ("one of the earlier voices," so perhaps identical with V1 or V2):
We came from the Mines to kill and then go back North.
So Voice X is unequivocally a Moria-orc.
Ugluk: We go to Isengard
Grishnakh: Who's in charge, Hand or Eye?
Voice 6: Can't cross the River (so not a follower of G)
Grishnakh: I crossed. There's a Nazgul.
Voice 6: No way, you cheat.
Ugluk: Boasts; denounces "you little swine."
Grishnakh: Denounces U and Saruman
At this point Pippin rolls over and sees U (large and black) facing off
with G (short but broad), surrounded by "many smaller goblins"-
interesting word- which P "supposes" are Northerners. No mention yet of
other Mordorians *or* Isengarders. Then other Isengarders run up to
support Ugluk. Ugluk beheads two of his opponents (who would have to be
"smaller goblins." Grishnakh slips off. Isengarders kill the yellow-fanged
guard- phrasing "the others" and "another" here imply, again, that these
belong to the "smaller goblins." After a bit, "some of the Northerners"
are unwilling, so the Isengarders kill two more of them as an
object-lesson.
All of this of course is completely consistent with Aragorn's
identification of the bodies as "Northern orcs." Despite T's sketch for
this scene, he gives no indication here that other orcs resembling
Grishnakh, or bearing the Red Eye, or insisting on going to Mordor, are
present. Just malcontent mountain-maggots, and Ugluk's uber-orcs.
7) Later in TT III/3, G. returns with followers, unmistakably described
as Mordor-orcs as I quoted yesterday. From this point, JRRT always
describes a tripartite composition, as he had not previously.
8) Finally, in October 1944 T makes his revised Time-scheme, detailing
everyone's movements, but which is maddenigly ambiguous as to whether at
key points he means "Grishnakh" or "Grishnakh's command."
It would be very interesting indeed to see the early time-schemes
contemporaneous with the writing of these chapters. Anyone have access to
Marquette? :)
*It may be significant that A. continues "Among them are none of the great
Orcs with the strange badges. There was a quarrel..." A's implication is
that "If Rohirrim or other friendlies had killed them, we'd see multiple
kinds of dead Orcs, but since we don't see Isengarders therefore..." It's
interesting that A. doesn't mention orcs of the Eye in this connection. I
would think that if Mordorians were present A. would have said "Among them
are no Orcs of Mordor, nor of the great Orcs," or "These corpses are
Mordor-orcs and Northerners from far away. Among them are none of the
great Orcs." In other words, the text seems to imply a bipartite rather
than tripartite composition.
** Frodo in the Seat of Seeing has *already* marked the attacks on Lorien
and Thranduil, although according to App. B the former won't occur until
March 11, and the latter until March 15. Perhaps F. is seeing preliminary
skirmishing. At any rate, Dol Guldur appears busy.
Final non sequitur: I could see Nazgul being useful in the attack on
Erebor/Dale/Esgaroth, but not against Lorien or Northern Mirkwood.
Ringwraiths don't seem to frighten Elves, and heavy forest canopy would
negate most airpower. I s'pose one could also idly wonder whether Dol
Guldur had the necessary stabling and support infrastructure for winged
Nazgbeasts, since it seems Sauron didn't hatch the idea until the end of
December.
T.M. Sommers
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:45:36 -0500, T.M. Sommers <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
>> Successful bridging would depend on speed and surprise. We know that
>> the Anduin, for instance, was not garrisoned along its whole length,
>> since the fellowship encountered no one on their trip. We also have
>> no evidence that the river was even kept under watch. Even if it
>> were, a crossing could probably be made in the time it took for word
>> to reach Gondor or Rohan and troops to then reach the crossing point.
>
> Agreed. However, if that had been the case prior to, say, Pippin's
> arrival at MT, surely mention of such an attack (and an unreduced
> defended bridgehead) surely would have been mentioned, wouldn't it?
Again, I am not saying it did happen. My sole point was that
pontoon bridges are ancient technology, within the capabilities
of Middle-earth armies.