Ye olde question about the midieval-ness of LOTR

[Kris Rhodes]

I am just curious to know what the arguments are on either side of this debate.

I've never discussed it before with anyone, but as I read the books (I just finished the second one) I have consciously tried to keep from thinking of things in midieval imagery - after all, the story is set thousands of years in the past, not hundreds.

But what do you guys think?

Also, are there any theories on just where on Earth Middle Earth actually was supposed to have been?

-Kris

[Rosie Cotton]

I've always thought of LOTR as being in a midevil setting; only a midevil setting that includes elves, dwarves, and hobbits. :)

It was supposed to be somewhere in Europe.... I don't know where.

[Grond]

Hail and well met, new friend Kris Rhodes. Your first thread is indeed a good one. I personally find myself thinking of a darker period than the medieval time. I am more reminded of the dark ages.

During Medieval times, there were rules of conduct and chivalry. I think of Middle-earth as a place with much more chaos and disorder. To me, that's what the whole story of the LotR is about. Aragorn seeking to turn ME into a world where chivalry, order and honor would actually have a chance.

[Gothmog]

I have to agree with Grond. I feel that there were two periods of what might be concidered chivalry. These were the at the hight of the Kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor before the battle with Sauron and the rising again of these Kingdoms under Aragorn after the War of the Ring. In between there was a dark age dominated by fear of the One Ring. It at the end of this Dark Age that The Lord of the Rings is set.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
Hail and well met, new friend Kris Rhodes. Your first thread is indeed a good one. I personally find myself thinking of a darker period than the medieval time. I am more reminded of the dark ages.

During Medieval times, there were rules of conduct and chivalry. I think of Middle-earth as a place with much more chaos and disorder. To me, that's what the whole story of the LotR is about. Aragorn seeking to turn ME into a world where chivalry, order and honor would actually have a chance.

As one who majored in history while at university, I must note that while the medieval period is described as having rules of conduct and chivalry in the texts of the day, the truth itself was far bloodier and more in line with chaos and disorder than conduct and chivalry.

Very very bloody and chaotic era. Most of the states/nations that existed in 1400 in Europe were completely absorbed into others by 1500, and many of them have never been heard of by most Americans... at least not in the context of them being actual nations... (Brabant, Gelre, Mecklenburg, Suzdal, Dulkadir, Karaman, Pommern, Wurtemburg, are just a few that disappeared in wars during this bloody time)

[gil-estel]

I was under the impression that ME was sometime like 7000 years ago-and that is just the 3Rd Age.
In this way it does reflect Medieval Europe as the tiny kingdoms constantly fought with each other for High-Kingsmanship, and trade links(Italian City States, Scottish Wars of Independence(and if anyone says Braveheart i will hit the roof) anyone?)
Also JRRT based some of his stuff on his own geography-the Shire was the Midlands of England etc.

[Wizdom]

The book is set sum time in the 14 hundreds.... and since america wasn't discovered yet...... i think it was sumwere in england or scoutland......

[Grond]

Ty... I give.... You just inform me of when in our history ME fits closest and I'll agree.:rolleyes:

[DGoeij]

Ty is quite right about the pre-state dominions that existed in the Netherlands. Gelderland (former Gelre) happens to be a province in the Netherlands and Northern Brabant is also a Duth province. Together with Utrecht and Holland, these territories were at constat war with eachother or being overrun by larger European kingdoms, then traded, sold or taken back again. Usually very nasty wars, nothing to do with chivalry.

[Lantarion]

I think it'd obvious that all fantasy novels have at least some Medieval-ness to them; what with the swords, spears, bows, shields, horses, etc. In that sense I think it is Medieval.
But as for the tone of thr story, I think that is quite different. The Medieval times, at least the Dark Ages, were terrible and gloomy times with little joy. The feudal system served for an easy way for the rich to get richer and poor to do even more work and become even more poor. The great "royal" families feuded amongst themselves about small trifles like bits of land, and they killed eachother pointlessly and called it "chivalry". This proved ill for the peasants, and they were always crushed.
On the other hand there were some good times. Although only people from wealthy families could become knights, these chevaliers did fight the good fight. Although much of it has been glorified, the knights did have a sort of code: basically to protect the weak, to serve their king, to fight all evil and to save the day. Hurrah.
But the definition of "evil" is different, depending on what kind of a king you have. If he is an unjust and horrible king, to him "evil" would mean any who oppose him. If he was a just and kindly king, "evil" might mean all that is against the basic, human morals, and opposes truth and simple justice.
Generally knights were noble and glorious, only partial to the Bible and to their king, and kicked some dragon-butt with their longswords! shwish, shwash, thwack ,clang! :D

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by DGoeij
Ty is quite right about the pre-state dominions that existed in the Netherlands. Gelderland (former Gelre) happens to be a province in the Netherlands and Northern Brabant is also a Duth province. Together with Utrecht and Holland, these territories were at constat war with eachother or being overrun by larger European kingdoms, then traded, sold or taken back again. Usually very nasty wars, nothing to do with chivalry.

Thanks for the confirmation, DG... :)

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
Ty... I give.... You just inform me of when in our history ME fits closest and I'll agree.:rolleyes:

Well, I really don't know what time period would correlate strongly to ME... all that I was noting was that the Middle Ages were brutal, bloody, dark and chaotic times... chivalry and honor did play some small part, but were usually used as excuses for political expediency, or personal gain. Most knights and men-at-arms of this era were little more than robber barons and brutish mercenaries, bribed by their overlords to take the part of one liege or another. The code of chivalry was an attempt to curb the excesses of this warrior class, who would, during times of peace, often visit terror on those they ruled over in lieu of some enemy country to loot. But it was never foremost in the minds of monarchs and rulers...

[Wizdom]

Who the heck cares what time period it was in!? people put to much importance on were a book takes place!!!!! if tolkien didn't want us to know were or when it was.... then let it go!!!!!

[DGoeij]

Wow, take a dive in a smimming pool full of vanilla ice .:cool:
I care about the stories of professor Tolkien and like to talk about the great variety of themes it covers. No need to start yelling 'leave it', read other threads if you're not interested.

[Grond]

DGoeij...... at last........ something we agree upon!:) lol

[Grond]

Okay... Grond will wade back into the fray. Middle-earth did not remind me of medieval times because there was so much open territory which was lawless. It reminded me more of the dark ages prior to 12th century.

Yes Ty, medieval times were both bloody and lawless. But the lawlessness occurred during periods of war which were themselves an attempt to enforce one robber-baron's laws and will on the other. Middle-earth had few fiefs and few rulers... which is totally at odds with your medieval comparison. It is much more like the dark ages.... a period of chaos with no real central leadership anywhere.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
Okay... Grond will wade back into the fray. Middle-earth did not remind me of medieval times because there was so much open territory which was lawless. It reminded me more of the dark ages prior to 12th century.

Yes Ty, medieval times were both bloody and lawless. But the lawlessness occurred during periods of war which were themselves an attempt to enforce one robber-baron's laws and will on the other. Middle-earth had few fiefs and few rulers... which is totally at odds with your medieval comparison. It is much more like the dark ages.... a period of chaos with no real central leadership anywhere.

Absolutely, Grond! I do not disagree with you here. I was merely pointing out that categorizing medieval times as chivalrous and well ordered was unfortunately a bit idealistic... :D

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Walter


I beg to differ...see my previous post. The medieval Europe had a rather complex system of states and law, most of them based on the old roman law and the caesars (Kaiser) and kings were no robber-barons...

As for middle-earth: do we really need to put it into those timeframe of which we know the history well enough to say that this is no actual possibility?

Hmmm... in saying that 'kings were no robber-barons' you illustrate what is a mostly romantic point of view regarding the political leadership in the era between about 500 A.D. - 1500 A.D. in Europe. The lords of Europe during this time were among the greatest robber barons, thieves, and murderers of any recorded age in history.

While Medieval Europe had complex laws, states, etc. based in varying degrees upon Roman law, this by no means should be taken to mean that the time was not one of chaos. A review of European history reveals that chaos was the order of the millenium between about 500 A.D. and 1500 A.D, not even considering the massive instability in the Roman empire (both halves) between about 200 A.D. - 500 A.D....

[Tyaronumen]

BTW: Those complex systems of laws, etc. were ignored by those in power whenever convenient/possible... window-dressing, more or less, to get a certain desired result: to control the people, to regulate commerce, etc.

[Wizdom]

sorry i yelled... i just was having a bad day... you guys are right................unles your isulting me LOL!

[gil-estel]

Ty
Whats the diff between then and now? Btw all that stuff bout roman law still has a bearing on European law systems-trust me on this i do it every day

[DGoeij]

Well, on the chaotic part. I can add that this was the consequence of the rising of numerous food-producing (using primarily argiculture I mean) society's on the Eurasian continent, wich tried to live next to eachother. Usually those society's took on war to expand its territory, simply because they were able to finance and feed an army.
Before the arrival of Christopher Columbus, the vast land-mass of northern America did contain some food producing society's, but surely not so many and they weren't neighbours. Wich made life on the Eurasian continent a lot more chaotic.

[Grond]

We simply comment on a European concept and it's attack all Americans time. Oh boy!!:(

[Brent]

I agree with Grond I'd say the late dark ages (with Numenor being like the byzantine empire) the very language and social structures are similar. Rohan's quite Norman in its structure, while Gondor is very Merovingian
Aren't they supposed to be about 7,000 years ago ?
I see some purists arguing that plate armour in the movie is wrong as only chainmail existed in Prof T.'s world. any comments ?

P.S. Wurtembourg was doing fine up until 1830 as was Hesse and Anhalt Dassau. Saxony was getting very big for its boots around then.

[Ciryaher]

Wizdom (and all other confused people...): The Lord of the Rings did not take place in any part of recorded history. The years described in the books (1400's was your example) was the reckoning of the Hobbits, and would have been the 2800's (is that right?) to the Dunedain.

The stories described by Tolkien take place in a mystical time, at some point in time during the late fourth age (or perhaps after) there was some great catastrophe that made the world what it is today (if one wants to tie these works in with history).

[Tyaronumen]

Walter writes:
Ty, I don't know whether this - especially the last sentence - is Your personal opinion or You have been taught this at some university in the states , but I can assure You that this is not how it is generally seen in Europe or taught at schools or universities here. Neither does it appear correct when You actually take a look at the number of dead or injured people during the wars in the 20th century, or the current tax-systems. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this...

Uhhh -- Opinions are pretty much irrelevant to this particular discussion, so I haven't brought it into play here. My point of view is derived from what I learned when I was earning my history degree here in the States, as well as in studying various history books about many periods in history (I am quite familiar with European history from the Minoan period through modern times, in other words).

It is a shame if it is a universal truth that schools and universities in Europe neglect the bloody chaos that was the European medieval period.

And if you are merely talking about sheer numbers? Well of course we must begin to discuss Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, but the fact is is that I was not stating that the medieval leaders were worse than any other leaders in history, simply that they are *among* them. As for the number of dead/injured during wars in the 20th century... what are you saying here? Obviously, as technology has become deadlier and populations have increased, warfare has become much more tragic and costly. The lack of brutal genocides during the middle-ages on the scale of what has occurred in the 20th Century is because of a lack of technological know-how, not because of higher values or more humanitarian leadership.




Chaos maybe, but compared to what? The same era in America? Africa? Asia? Australia? Or compared to nowadays?
Please try - for a moment - to see it from the European point of view. We are rather proud of having a - political - history that reaches back to the greek or roman imperia. Which makes it a time period of roughly 2000 years. History in America for example - at least the history of the white race there - how far does it reach back? To Christopher Columbus? The passengers of the Mayflower? Or the civil war?

Chaos compared to what I was initially responding to, which is the notion that the medieval period was one filled with chivalry, honor, and order.

And Walter -- my mother is European (English, granted, but still :D), and I have a lot of family living over there whom I see from time to time. I have no difficulty appreciating the "European point of view", and I understand the European pride in their ancient traditions.

It is, however, a mistake to deny that European history is filled with bloodshed, treachery, and dis-honourable conduct. By doing so, IMHO this cheapens the gains made by the great humanitarians in Europe of the last 300 or so years in controverting the old way of doing things and bringing about advances in human rights, systems of government, scientific knowledge, etc.

Ty, I am afraid, You might not see the wood for the trees, and I will be glad if You let me provide You with a list of a couple of reference-books about medieval history. From the european point of view that is...

It is difficult to interpret what you mean by saying that "I might not see the wood for the trees". From my point of view, you are having difficulty acknowledging the trees because of the forest, I guess. :D

Feel free to provide me with some reference-books about medieval history. I have studied history as written by Europeans from Procopius and Tacitus up through the modern era, however, so it would not be accurate for one to believe that I am not quite well aware of the European perspective on things...

Cheers, mate.

[Brent]

Sorry but the idea that Europe was in chaos from 500 AD to 1500AD is nonsense.
English/US law is NOT taken from Roman law its Anglo Saxon. In fact many "American" things are in fact Old English.
Sheriffs - shire reeves or offcials of the exchequer in each shire.
the grand jury - anglo saxon institution done away with in the UK in 1937 still used in the US
and the big one (which nearly always gets brits) "Fall" up until the 1780's England had Winter, Spring, Summer and FALL, it wasn't called Autumn over here until 1783.

Prof T was a very good Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic Scholar, LOTR draws heavily on this, so I would say Dark Ages.

Can we keep the discussion to Tolkien and not wander off

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Brent
I agree with Grond I'd say the late dark ages (with Numenor being like the byzantine empire) the very language and social structures are similar. Rohan's quite Norman in its structure, while Gondor is very Merovingian
Aren't they supposed to be about 7,000 years ago ?
I see some purists arguing that plate armour in the movie is wrong as only chainmail existed in Prof T.'s world. any comments ?

P.S. Wurtembourg was doing fine up until 1830 as was Hesse and Anhalt Dassau. Saxony was getting very big for its boots around then.

Hee! With a few hiccups in between, but you are right, Brent. Wurtembourg *was* arround in 1830... however, in 1519, Ulrich I (Duke of W.) was expelled by the Swabian League and Charlie V of Austria bought the rights to the place, which is the incident that I was thinking of when I mentioned Wurtemburg in my list... however, in 1599, the duchy was removed from the holdings of Austria and restored to the Empire, so it really didn't belong there..

thanks for the correction!

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Brent
Sorry but the idea that Europe was in chaos from 500 AD to 1500AD is nonsense.

Can we keep the discussion to Tolkien and not wander off

Soooooo... you're saying that the 1000 year period in which vast areas of Europe were continously involved in wars was *not* chaotic?

Sounds like "nonsense" to me too.

[DGoeij]

No way I was attacking Amaricans. I just added my knowledge to a pretty good discussion. No need to draw lines across the Atlantic ocean;)

But the Dark Ages sound good to me, for there is so much "left emptie" (bad english I guess, but as best as I could describe it) land in ME at the time of LOTR. But that was different in the pre-LOTR era's. Quite different from European history, if I remenber correctly.

[Brent]

Originally posted by Tyaronumen


Soooooo... you're saying that the 1000 year period in which vast areas of Europe were continously involved in wars was *not* chaotic?

Sounds like "nonsense" to me too.

"Vast areas of Europe" "continously involved"
Yes I think thats nonsense. Its a sweeping statement, You post about Charles V with knowlege and then use such a sweeping statement to describe a 1000 year bit of history. Your use of the word "chaos" is also dangerous.
Was there war - yes (there is now BTW)
was it nasty, you bet.
Did people die - yep, rather a lot.
Was it Chaos - don't think so.
There were laws, currency, social groupings, a form of society, I don't call that chaos. I don't think, lets say, that the hundred years war involved vast areas of Europe. The rather devasting thirty years war is outside the dates you gave.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Brent


"Vast areas of Europe" "continously involved"
Yes I think thats nonsense. Its a sweeping statement, You post about Charles V with knowlege and then use such a sweeping statement to describe a 1000 year bit of history. Your use of the word "chaos" is also dangerous.
Was there war - yes (there is now BTW)
was it nasty, you bet.
Did people die - yep, rather a lot.
Was it Chaos - don't think so.
There were laws, currency, social groupings, a form of society, I don't call that chaos. I don't think, lets say, that the hundred years war involved vast areas of Europe. The rather devasting thirty years war is outside the dates you gave.

Brent -- you should remember that I was referring to this as being chaotic _compared to_... what? The ideal of Europe during the medieval period as being highly chivalrous, highly honorable, well ordered, etc...

There were all of those things that you mention, but none of them live up to the idealizations presented in romanticized views of the Middle-Ages... compared to these notions, the reality in Europe was definitely quite chaotic between 500-1500 A.D.

As for my comment about vast areas of Europe being continously involved? Well, I don't know about you, but I *do* consider a war that encompasses most of France and parts of the Holy Roman Empire (not forgetting Burgandy's crucial part in events) for 100 years to be fairly vast...

Or Charlemagne's wars... or the wars between the Moors and the Spaniards, which encompass several hundred years of history in the Iberian Peninsula... or the many wars that were visited upon the Eastern Europeans by waves of migrations coming west (among these are, most famously perhaps, the Mongol hordes of Chinghis Khan), and thereafter by the fighting between the Golden Horde and the various Russian principalities, and later, just the Russian principalities... all of these events would fit into my definitions of vast also, but if not yours, that is cool, since what constitutes 'vast' is pretty subjective...

Certainly *not* vast in the sense of 30 Years War or WWII, but these events are beyond the scope of much that has occurred in human history, and I would call them (with flair :D): 'beyond vast'. ;)

Or the wars of Frederick Barbarossa in Germany, etc.etcetc...

You are right that I used a broad sweeping statement, but only because I did not wish to bore anyone with the exhaustive detail that has been documented by the various historians of the ages to describe the history of that period...

Cheers!

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Walter
Ty, like I said before, we will just have to agree to disagree. What You see as 2000 years of chaos most of us Europeans see as 2000 years of culture in political, cultural and economical areas and so be it! Maybe 20 years from now when You will be about the age I am now, You will have changed Your point of view...

PS: Or maybe I will have changed mine...cheers ;)

er...scuse me, folks, what was topic? :D

Let us agree to that then... for while I see order as the sand-castle that is constantly worn and eroded by the chaos of the sea and must therefore be ever renewed, and the counsel of my heart tells me that it is so, each day brings new tidings, and brings many new things.

[Brent]

TyaronUmen

I agree with your points regarding the Merry Olde middle ages but not some of the others wars in the middle ages look vast on a map, but not on the ground and having spent vast amounts of time wading through old english charater rolls I know the laws in this country (england) were far from window dressing.

Anyhow lets get back to the topic 'cos I for one joined to talk about things Tolkien

I'd say Late Dark Ages.

Anyone else have a prejudice against Plate Mail armour in the LOTR movie ?

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Brent
Tyaronumen

I agree with your points regarding the Merry Olde middle ages but not some of the others wars in the middle ages look vast on a map, but not on the ground and having spent vast amounts of time wading through old english charater rolls I know the laws in this country (england) were far from window dressing.

Anyhow lets get back to the topic 'cos I for one joined to talk about things Tolkien

I'd say Late Dark Ages.

Anyone else have a prejudice against Plate Mail armour in the LOTR movie ?

I am not referring merely to the vast appearance of the nations on the map, but rather, the vast effect that war has upon a nation... higher taxes, less food, economic troubles, and lack of man-power to both fight a war and grow the food needed are some of the peripheral issues... oft times, an army would have far greater effect on it's enemies (at least the so-called "common men" among them) through it's despoilment of enemy lands than through the battles themselves... I know that while it is untrue that huge battles were constantly fought through-out (for instance) the Hundred Years War, the effects of maintaining the armies that *did* fight these occasional battles was often as debilitating to the treasury of a nation and a nation's people as the battle's themselves were...

When I refer to laws as being near-window dressing, I am referring to the propensity for them to change almost as it were by magic when they are contrary to the desires of those in power... certainly they were enforced to whatever degree the powerful wished... I would certainly agree with you that this was less so the case in England than most other countries (with a definite exception of Poland) because of things such as the Magna Charta... but keep in mind that even in England, the balance was formed among the powerful and few -- it was not a balance between the rights and aspirations of the many and those of the few...

I don't really have a prejudice against plate armor being in the movie because for some reason, I have always pictured Eol (father of Maeglin) as being clad in galvorn plate armor, even though there is never any declaration as to whether it is plate, chain or otherwise... just one of those mental imagery things that sticks with one, I suppose...

[DGoeij]

I'm sorry to jump on a small piece of your post Walter.
But wasn't it gunpowder or something close to it that was used in the Battle of Helms Deep, when Sarumans army blasted a hole in the wall?

[Lantarion]

I think only Tolkien's passion for the Middle Ages and his Anglo-Saxon language delight made him write the story in a mode *very* similar to medieval times; but I also think that the medieval times were much more 'authentic' and aesthetic, somehow, than eg. the time of the Renaissance.
But really, Tolkien was writing of the troubles of the world then, in the early 1900's. And although he did not mean to write in allegory, his experiences in World War I, the turbulent class-war, industrialization and the contrast of the peaceful countryside and the fuming, bustling metropols most definately affected his writing, perhaps subconciously more than conciously.

As to the "Fire of Orthanc" and the industrialization of M-e: I think that it is very possible, and somewhat more exciting and dramatic to think of the blasts as gunpowder rather than magic. It might be a bit difficult to transport magic around the place, whereas gunpowder can just be lugged in huge barrels and blown up on the spot.
There is a very interesting computer game, that has been around for some time, called Arcanum. It tells about a fantasy world, with orcs, elves, men, dwarves et al., but mixed in with the medievalness is an industrializing and modernizing form of civilization, which is part of the main plot. I think it's a splendid idea, but it might not have worked in the LotR.

[Tyaronumen]

I guess that I've just assumed for quite a long while now that the explosions at Helm's Deep were caused by gunpowder... and that the technological advances (such as those that we witness in the Shire) might have been more because of the influence of Saruman (who was mighty among the people of Aüle after all!) than because of any overall technological advancement among the peoples of M-E on their own (if that makes sense)...

The reason that I say this is because it seems like the technologies employed by Saruman (such as the mill run by Ted Sandyman) were loathed by many for their pollutants, etc... and not necessarily welcomed by the majority...

[Wizdom]

No offence but ya'll have way to much time on your hands if you remember anything from school!LOL! just joking.... i think it might have been in undiscoverd america.... don't hate me couse i'm stupid!LOL!!!

[DGoeij]

I think you're right about that Tyaronumen. After the scouring of the Shire the Hobbits did away with practically all the things that were brougth in by Sarumans men. And the Ents took care of the machinery in Isengard, and it seems that nobody missed those either.
Actually i can't remember much about any sort of technological advancement in ME in all the works of professor Tolkien. Well, maybe in the dwarvish kingdoms, where steel and mithril was discovered and put to use.

[Lantarion]

bump