Orcs out of pods?

[Kris Rhodes]

Just want to point out - I saw the movie again and I really don't think the movie portreys orcs as having been spawned out of "pods." The movie shows *saruman's uruks* coming out of sort of pod thingies, but that's to show that they are Saruman's creation.

The birth of actual orcs, however, is not addressed.

Also, I had to watch the credits to see who Lurtz is. He isn't even named in the movie... so what's really the "big deal" as it were?

-Kris

[ReadWryt]

So what you suggest is that perhaps the manner that Uruks are made from Orcs involves these Pod Things? Interesting...

The whole Lurtz thing is an annoyance at best. It's just that with so many characters cut for the sake of time, Lurtz is a reminder of how time was spent yet again on characters that were not part of the story in the first place...

[Mandella]

I thought about that too, Kris! :)

It wouldn't really make sense for Lurtz to be such an imposing fighter, having just been birthed! Perhaps Saruman was indeed simply using his powers to twist the best of his half-orc's and orc's into the new fighting Uruk-Hai...

And the time spent on Lurtz wasn't really about that particular Uruk, but rather of the new race as a whole. They needed to emphasise just how these dark skinned "super-orcs" (As my non-Tolkienite friend called them...:p ) were different and more dangerous than the regular goblins.

And they succeeded IMHO. Nice touch with the White Hand war paint, too...

[ReadWryt]

New? Let's see...the first movie covers the period through the year 3019, the first mention of Uruks is in a battle in which second Boromir in 2475 routed them out of Ithilien...they had been around for over 500 years...unless you meant new to the audience..oh wait, yeah. I bet that is what you meant, nevermind. DOH!:eek:

[chrome_rocknave]

Well, I thought it was uninteresting and dumb to have orcs hatching from pods. I think Jackson only put that in there for the 9 year olds that would be flocking to see a movie with gore...
I didn't really need to see that....ugh

[Kris Rhodes]

The book does not actually depict the creation of Saruman's uruks - it simply has another character *say* "Saruman made them" or words to that effect. But (I don't remember specifically why this is,) I came away from the story with the definite impression of that creation being a pretty horrible and nasty and evil science-run-amok kind of thing.

Now here's the deal. In a movie, I can not think of any way to simply have a character *say* taht he created them and still evoke a reaction (a real, actualy *reaction* and not just head-knowledge) that this was a horrible evil twisted process. In a *movie* (though not necessarily in a book,) this must be explicitly *shown* - it can not be effectively implied through context clues and stylistic rhetorical devices as in a book. Movies just don't work that way.

So, I think the Uruk-pod conciet was a pretty insightful way to achieve the same (or an analous) effect in the audience. I actually think that changes like this show a great *familiarity with and understanding of* the themes and morals of the LOTR stories.

-Kris

[ReadWryt]

I don't remember anyone mentioning who made the Military Droids in Phantom Menace, but it was assumed that they were made by someone. I know that Orcs and Machines are different in that we KNOW that a machine had to be made, but that Uruks and Orcs might well have inhabited the mountain caves since time unremembered. Because of the story telling limitations I kind of assumed that we, at some point, would see Saruman commanding his troops. Why then could the concept that he made the Uruks not simply be handled then? "Go do the work I created you for" or words to that effect.

In light of so many changes being made in the name of reducing confusion for the audience, it seems to me that this works counter to that idea. Why make things "easier" for the Non-Reading audience and Alienate those who actually bothered to crack open the cover of a literary work by reverting back to your Horror Movie/Gore Fest roots? I just think that this was one of those moments when Jackson was at a loss for any creative way to do things and fell back on tricks he learned making movies like Braindead (Dead/Alive), a movie which held the record for having a scene which contained the largest amount of Stage Blood ever shot in a single scene..

[Thorin]

The book and the movie both say (or imply) that Saruman was breeding orcs with man. He was interbreeding and through that would have come out with a different race from just plain old orc. This (maybe along with special wizard power from Saruman) would make it plain why the orcs can run in daylight and are bigger and meaner.

They breed normally like regular orcs do. They do not come out of pods and to portray that is just silly. Resorting to old horror tricks to show a bit of slime and gore. It is ludicrous to justify it by reason, so stop trying. Tolkien makes things plain.

[aragil]

Who on this board would have felt it less offensive to see some sort of sex scene between a man and she-orc, than it was to watch the pod-hatching?

NOT ME!!

The Uruks were originally bread by Sauron, and were bigger, larger, and smarter than those created by Morgoth which had been running around for two and a half ages. But they were not the Uruk-hai. The Uruk-hai were a new breed created by Saruman. They were superior even to the Uruks of Mordor- Grishnak was a Uruk, Ugluk was a Uruk-hai. Why is it important? Well, in my opinion Saruman's ability to improve on the designs of both Morgoth and Sauron is impressive. It shows us all how powerful Saruman was. So it is important to the development of Saruman's character to show him creating this new race of master orcs.
Of course, there are many ways that Jackson could have shown this creation and stayed true to the book. The above scenario is one that probably would have been pretty appealing to a purported Horror-film hack looking to ratchet up the gore count. But then this would have left him with a whole bunch of infant Uruk-hai- not much use in hunting down the fellowship. Having them hatch out of pods brings the element of magic into it. As a biologist, I can tell you that the heads on those Uruks would probably have been too big at infancy to make it out of the birth canal of a female orc or human. I'd imagine that what happened in the movie is that the fetus were removed from the mother prematurely, and then allowed to experience an accelerated maturation process in the pods.

[Greenwood]

This whole orcs from pods controversy seems to me to be yet another debate about a rumor spread before the film opened.

I have seen the movie twice now. I saw no pods. I saw orcs stirring (?) some muddy mass from which a new, larger orc thing (presumably a Uruk-hai) emerged. Both the book and the movie say that Saruman was blending/mixing/interbreeding/? (I don't remember the exact quote and I don't have the books at hand at the moment) orcs and men to make bigger, stronger creatures who are unafraid of the sun. Contrary to Thorin's assertion Tolkien does not "make things plain" on this subject.

The movie chose to visualize the process. Would the people who object to the way it was done in the movie provide an alternative visual? Merely saying: "Just say the races were mixed", does not constitute a visualization. This is a movie. Would you have preferred some Middle Earth version of a biochemistry lab? Saruman was Saruman the White; I suppose he must have had something resembling a lab coat lying around. Or perhaps we could go for and R or X rating for the film and have a scene of maidens from Rohan being dragged off and ravaged by orcs?

My apologies for the sarcasm. This is the first post in which I have used it, but I am getting tired of hearing complaints about things in the movies that are not in the movie.

[Greenwood]

Aragil

Our posts seem to be passing each others in the ether again. :) Maybe it is because we both have biological backgrounds.

[Cian]

"Related, no doubt, was the word uruk in the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." RotK Appendix F

[Aerin]

Reading this thread reminded me of a movie I saw not too long ago...
As for the Orcs hatching out of pods, what I saw looked an awful lot like a slimy pod Lurtz was coming out of. Not to mention totally revolting!
But what reminded me was the way Lurtz emerged from the slimy goo. My da had me watch an old movie about two weeks ago, and it was almost exactly the same.
The movie was "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers", the original one. When the body snatchers emerged from the pods, it looked almost exactly like when the Orc came out of his "pod"... only in "Invasion", it was a human that came out.
I find this rather amusing, but rather puzzling. Does PJ know that the scene is so close to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? If so, was it a ploy to make one think of an alien species?
As for me, I don't really care how the Orcs bred. In addition, I don't really want to know.... When reading LotR, it is enough to know that the Uruk-Hai are a relatively new breed of Orc that is tougher and stronger than the older Orcs.

Greenwood - No, I would not care to see what PJ could come up with as a "Middle Earth lab". That thought is revolting, just as the scene where Lurtz makes his entrance is.

[Foe-Hammer]

were coming out of a sack that looked to be incubating in a primordial soup of sorts. I did not see stacks and stacks of pods and the uruk-hai were fully developed, where as the body snatchers took form over a period of time.

If I missed it, I apologize, but it seems to me the real reason to show Sarumans making the uruk-hai was to show he had his own agenda. Especially when he commanded lurtz not to spoil (search) them. (even though sauron commanded saruman to create them in the first place)

With the death of lurtz, the door is opened for a struggle for control within the uruk-hai on the way back to Isengard.

[Thorin]

Which brings me to another interesting NP point.

Did any of you notice that one of the orcs led by Lurtz was just about to do in Merry and Pippen before Boromir came on the scene? What happened to the command from Saruman that none of the Hobbits were to be harmed and spoiled? This seems like a little bit of an oversight on the directors part rather than an overzealous orc disobeying orders.

If you want to talk about keeping in the spirit of Tolkien rather than the exact written word, the orcs had many times when they could have ravaged and wiped out the hobbits. Even pyscho Grishnak was in a quandary because of the orders. They did not because they knew to follow orders. It is obvious that one of PJ's orcs was not going to.

[aragil]

I noticed that bit too. Who can say, untrustworthy orc or PJ's folly. Remember the opening of book 6- The wiping out of the entire garrison of Cirith Ungol (not to mention a large portion of the rearguard of Minas Morgul) just because some of the orcs didn't want to follow orders.

[Greenwood]

Did any of you notice that one of the orcs led by Lurtz was just about to do in Merry and Pippen before Boromir came on the scene? What happened to the command from Saruman that none of the Hobbits were to be harmed and spoiled? This seems like a little bit of an oversight on the directors part rather than an overzealous orc disobeying orders.

It is quite clear in The Two Towers that the orc band that has captured Merry and Pippin are composed of groups loyal to Saruman and to Sauron. Perhaps the orc attacking them was from Sauron's band.

[ReadWryt]

I'm getting the impression here that folks think that Saruman invented Uruk-hai. Uruks faught way back in 2475 at Ithilien and Osgiliath, this movie takes place in 3018-3019. They are merely a strain of the same Orcs that Melkor created in Utumno in the first age before the Men were created. they are made from Elves who were captured near Cuivienen and had flourished and bred in the Misty Moutains from 1300 onward, the difference being that the Great Orcs, or Uruk-Hai bred to create a strain that would not suffer the ill effects that the Sun has on Pure Bred Orcs.

Half Orcs are mentioned as Saruman's servants. They are also refered to as The Chief's Men. They are taller and are apparently interbred with Men and are NOT Uruk-hai.

[Greenwood]

Throughout The Two Towers the Uruk-hai are portrayed as Saruman's troops with an implication that he created them.

In the chapter The Uruk-hai (which as far as I remember is the first time the name is used in LOTR) Ugluk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior [Boromir]. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... "

Later in The Two Towers in the chapter Treebeard, Treebeard says in talking about Saruman: "He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, ir has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!"

Tolkien seems to be distinguishing the Uruk-hai as Saruman's and later implying Saruman had a hand in creating them.

[Tuor]

In an attempt to reconcile the muddy membrane thing that Lurtz came out of, I think that Saruman caused the Uruk-Hai either to be born with intact amniotic sacks or surrounded by the afore-mentioned membrane after birth. The Uruk-Hai were then incubated there, being made stronger and smarter than they would have been. Or it could have been just Lurtz, and maybe Ugluk too, who were incubated in this fashion.

[ReadWryt]

You believe ReadWryt by not taking his words out of context and actually looking at what he said. He said that Sauron created the Uruks but says nothing about Saruman NOT breeding his own batch. The Chinese created Pekingese, but this does not stop my landlady from breeding them herself.

[Matiage]

I agree somewhat with Tuor.

One can make what one wants of the "pod" scene, but that is exactly how ovovivaporous snakes are birthed with the egg sack in tact. Anyone who has ever seen a clutch of simple garter snakes come out of their sacks should see the similarities.

I do not recall Tolkien stating how these beasts were created or born, so I will not take issue with this.

I do think all of the "look at my Evil Dead makeup" growling shots could have been best spent elsewhere.

[Greymantle]

Yes, he did say something about this subject. I believe the quote was that "Orcs reproduce in the manner of the Elves." Must be a note from HoME. Could someone verify that, please? I have several thousand pages to go in this huge set of books...

[aragil]

I have to give ReadWryt a point here- Uruk-hai was the term used to describe both Sauron's and Saruman's chief orcs. I looked in appendix F of RotK, Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-Earth, and the Encyclopedia of Arda- they all seem to agree on the point. I guess my confusion stems from the way in which they are treated in the narrative of the Two Towers. Aragorn takes note that several pieces of equipment from those slain by Boromir at Amon Hen are very different from what orcs normally carry. I find it hard to believe that Aragorn had never faced off against Mordor Uruks before. There is also various quotes by characters such as Treebeard (above) and Glamding the old which imply that the bulk of Saruman's troops are some sort of Orc-Human hybrid. I'm guessing that Saruman's troops are Uruk-hai, but they are bit different than your run-of-the mill variety (sort of like ReadWryt's neighbor's Pekanese). I guess the fact that they seem to identify themselves first as Uruk-hai, and then as the servants of Saruman made me think that the Uruk-hai were particular to Saruman, with Uruks being your more common variety.

[ReadWryt]

Trust me, there are many days when I wish that the Chinese had exclusivity on the breeding of Pekingese, especially when all 12 dogs here start barking at the neighbor's cat.

Unfortunately I only have 4 of the books in the History of Middle-earth myself, and they leap from #5 to #9, and none speaks of Uruks. Since IX is "Sauron Defeated" and picks up from the time after the Ring is destroyed it only focuses upon the events after that. It IS interesting though to read the drafts of "The Souring of the Shire" as I feel that seeing what Tolkien didn't want it to say says as much about what he wanted as what was in the final version. He really cared deeply about the Hobbits and their development into brave and "mature" individuals...it's very sweet and his adoration at that point for the lot of them is heartwarming.

[aragil]

'For the orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar'

[Greenwood]

You believe ReadWryt by not taking his words out of context and actually looking at what he said. He said that Sauron created the Uruks but says nothing about Saruman NOT breeding his own batch

The question that was raised was orcs vs. Uruk-hai.

To repeat my earlier post:

In the chapter The Uruk-hai (which as far as I remember is the first time the name is used in LOTR) Ugluk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior [Boromir]. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... "

Later in The Two Towers in the chapter Treebeard, Treebeard says in talking about Saruman: "He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, ir has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!"

Tolkien seems to be distinguishing the Uruk-hai as Saruman's and later implying Saruman had a hand in creating them.

[Greymantle]

I'm afraid I don't know of any "primary source" quotes on this subject, but this is from J.E.A. Tyler's Tolkien Companion.

"Uruk-hai 'Orc-race' (Black Speech) The name given by Sauron to a new strain of Orcs bred in secrecy by him in Mordor towards the end of the Third Age, and said (by his enemies) to have been created by the blending of the races of Orcs and Men. It is certain, however, that (so far as Orcs went) the Uruk-hai were a far superior breed, being taller and stronger, with great endurance, and an altogether higher level of intelligence. For these reasons alone they were greatly to be feared. They first appeared in 2475 Third Age, when a strong force attacked the outposts of Ithilien and captured Osgiliath; this army was later driven out by Boromir, son of Ruling Steward Denethor I.
However, the Uruk-hai did not remain exclusively in Sauron's service. By the time of the War of the Ring a great number formed the backbone of the Army of Isengard, and were trained and paid by the renegade Wizard Saruman the White. Most of this force was destroyed at the Battle of the Hornburg. Saruman himself attempted further genetic experiments with this race of 'Great Orcs' -- with singularly unhappy results: creatures known as 'Half-orcs' which were said (by Saruman's enemies) to be the result of cross-breeding between the Uruk-hai and certain degenerate Men in his service."
-TC, 498-499

[Greenwood]

I'm afraid I don't know of any "primary source" quotes on this subject, but this is from J.E.A. Tyler's Tolkien Companion.

Heavens, Greymantle!!! The purest purist accepting someone else's writing over Tolkien's? I am feeling faint. :eek: :)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
AGAIN
why did LOTR only mention Uruk-Hai with respect to Saruman? If it was Sauron's invention, why didnt he have any?

Any "pundit" can make up quotes but Aragil (?) pointed out, the primary source trumps outside pundits.

JRRT's writings aside from LOTR (and even there...) are full of contradictions due to different epochs of writing with differing versions of stories.

What takes precedence?

Keep in mind, Harad that LoTR doesn't elaborate on a lot of things. Just because something is not mentioned or briefly mentioned in LoTR doesn't mean that there isn't anything else in Tolkien's writing to back it up. Gandalf's words to the Balrog, reference to Nimrodel, and the geography Treebeard mentioned, the mention of Carn Dum by Merry at the Barrow Downs, all of these are elaborated on by Tolkien or by Christopher Tolkien in other writings of Tolkien. Just because Tolkien mentions the fact that the Uruk-hai were in Saruman's service, doesn't mean that they didn't exist elsewhere. You make it sound like you must take LoTR the way it says or throw the whole concept out because JRR didn't elaborate on it.

Grey's quote says it all and I don't think it came out of thin air. Or did J.E.A Tyler consult JRR by Ouija board?

[Greymantle]

The Companion is simply a concordence and index of much known information from LotR and the Hobbit. It predates the Silmarillion.
Tyler simply recorded available information. Her only additions/interpretations are explained in the preface:

"In addition, by using the same principles of decipherment as he did, although far more hesitently, I have attempted to give meanings to many words in the Elvish and Mannish tongues which were never translated by Tolkien. [As the only translation in the passage I cited was from the Black Speech, this presumably does not apply. -G] And I have also endeavored to postulate likely historical significances, based on all known facts, where Tolkien has not done so. I am of course aware of the dangers inherent in such a practice, but I believe I may claim with some justification that nowhere does an entry in this Companion conflict with any fact as reported by the Hobbit-creators of the Red Book (as translated by the scholar after whom this Companion has been named). Where three facts are known, it is sometimes easy to deduce a fourth: that is all I have done. And if for my own purposes I have attempted to adhere to the literary style of the original Red Book as closely as possible, then I hope that few will blame me."
-10

[Thorin]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Banshee scream)


Tolkien is Tolkien. The scope of ME goes beyond just LoTR, and must be compared with each other to get the whole picture. LoTR shows that there is much more than meets the eye. I would have been a little miffed and confused if Tolkien left gaping holes. He did not. Who cares if he mentions something in LoTR which is not mentioned in Silmarillion or something in UT that is elaborated on in HoME. They all complement each other. What's your problem? If someone else uses his factual items to create a more cohesive picture (Like his son Christopher did) I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with someone who feels Arwen should be some sort of warrior challenging the Nine which even Elrond and Galadriel wouldn't have done with no factual support. Consolidating, researching and reporting is a lot different than changing, taking liberties with, and distorting character and information.

[Greenwood]

Greymantle, Thorin

Sorry but you can't use secondary sources to refute a primary source and you as purists should be the first to uphold that principle. Those of us in research are well aware of it. In fact in biological taxonomy and systematics (the science of organisms names and relationships) the rules are quite specific. Not only does a primary source trump any secondary source, but within a primary source, in the event of a conflict a citation from an earlier page in published material trumps a statement on a later page in the same publication. The rule even extends to precedence being given to what comes first on a page if there is a conflict between two things on the same page.

LOTR is clearly the primary source here, certainly over any compendium compiled by another author. LOTR even takes precedence over The Silmarillion in the event of a conflict between the two. LOTR was published first and during Tolkien's lifetime. The Silmarillion was published posthumously and thus Tolkien did not have a chance to deal with any inconsistencies between the two, as he might have wished prior to publication. Thus neither The Silmarillion, nor any other posthumously published publication can be used to refute Tolkien's own statements in LOTR. You can use them to perhaps bolster your opinions, but not directly contradict LOTR.

[Thorin]

I honestly can't belive what I'm hearing here.

If there is a contradiction in Tolkien's writings, LoTR must be taken as the true because it was published first??? Oh my. For your information, after LoTR was published and until his death, Tolkien turned his attention back to the Elder Days from which the Silmarillion is a part of it. So if you used your method of hermeneutics, Silmarillion would take precedence. And I don't see where in any of Tolkien's published writings (Other than the HoME series which shows the growing process of ME) there are contradictions. Elaborations that are not detailed in LoTR, yes.

You are assuming that Tolkien contradicted himself concerning the origin of orcs. He did not from what I can see. There is nothing I've seen that says that Saruman CREATED the Uruk-hai. Consider Treebeard's statement:

But Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, ir has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!"

The Uruk-hai (as mentioned in Tyler's researched statement) became servants of Saruman. And because of the what Saruman did to them, they not only were Uruk-hai orcs, but a revamped and improved version of orc. I don't see any contradiction at all.

[Aerin]

I think what this thread boils down to is whether or not you are willing to look at someone else's perspective (it's the same for most of the threads on this message board).
I think that the question "Did Orcs come out of pods?" has become immaterial in this discussion. It seems that everyone has to have the last word.
Please do not take this as an accusation, because it is most definitely not.

Three days ago, when I was in the waiting room at the doctor's, my mother and I were having an argument about Frodo's taking the Ring; whether it was his Fate or not. She expressed the view that it didn't matter if Frodo wanted to take the Ring, but that it was Fate that chose him. I argued to the opposite, and she told me that within literature, there are many interpretations possible.
Four people, from different places and with different backgrounds, can read the same book and get variant thoughts from it. Literature is one of the fuzziest of the "fuzzy subjects". There are almost limitless ways to interpret literature, and that's what makes reading and discussing books interesting.
I would hate to live in a world where everyone had the same thoughts about everything. Variety is the spice of life.
One thing I have noticed about literature, is there are no hard, fast facts. Everything is open to interpretation.
Even when someone digs deep into Tolkien's works to come up with an exact quote, or when someone uses a reference, such as J.E.A. Tyler's book, and says "Here's a proven fact", I cannot take that as a fact.
Facts, to me, are 2 + 2 = 4. No one, no matter their background, can argue that fact. It is set in stone.
I am sure that if I read Tyler's book, I could find the same passages that have been quoted, and interpret them differently.

I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is wrong, I'm just saying that we all interpret things differently.
So as you continue to debate the origin of Orcs, please keep in mind, no one is "right" or "wrong". There can only be interpretations, not 'facts'.

Also, please keep in mind, this is only my opinion... not to be taken as fact either!

[Greymantle]

Originally posted by Greenwood

Sorry but you can't use secondary sources to refute a primary source and you as purists should be the first to uphold that principle.
... You can use them to perhaps bolster your opinions, but not directly contradict LOTR.

Where, may I ask, does LotR definitively state that the Uruk-hai were originally the creations of Saruman? I'm not saying that it does not state it, but I've quoted my secondary source; show us your priumary source, and we can talk about it.

[aragil]

Beware secondary material! I'm not going to let a companion guide (I own several) convince me of their interpretations without explicit evidence from the text. I have found no point in the text where the orcs bred by Sauron are referred to as anything but Uruks. The only time the term Uruk-hai is used (that I can find) is in application to those orcs serving Saruman. Aragorn has spent time defending Gondor, and tracked down Gollum in the Dead Marshes. Both of these are very near to Ithilien, where Sauron's Uruks (as they are termed in the entry for TA 2901 in appendix B, the tale of years) were originally observed. Yet he was surprised by the gear that Saruman's Uruk-hai carried, which is what I would call contextual evidence that Saruman's orcs were different from those serving Mordor since 2475. For further evidence, the direct quote from appendix a which undoubtedly provided Tyler with her info:
'In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath.' This appears on page 414 of my edition of the Return of the King (silver jubilee edition, 71st printing of First Ballantine Books Edition), beginning of the last paragraph of the page.
Here, and all other places in the text Sauron's orcs are referred to as Uruks, not Uruk-hai. It is entirely plausible that those who wrote these companions (Foster made the same claim, as does the encyclopedia of Arda) were mistaken, which is what I will believe until I see contradictory evidence penned by Tolkien (JRR and not Christopher) himself.
I (and Greymantle) have posted further on the subject at:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=27246#post27246

ps Since starting to write this thread, I have become 9 posts (at least) removed from where I had intended to place it. Please read it in that context.

[Greenwood]

Thorin

You have ignored the other quote from LOTR I included in my earlier post. to repeat it:

In the chapter The Uruk-hai (which as far as I remember is the first time the name is used in LOTR) Ugluk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior [Boromir]. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... "

Tolkien seems fairly clear on this. The Uruk-hai, as opposed to any other kinds of orcs, came from Isengard, apparently the creation of Saruman. Whatever Tyler has said in some compendium is as a lawyer would say "immaterial and irrelevant."

[Greymantle]

Harad...hehe... what about The Adventures of Tom Bombadil? Leaf and Niggle? :p

[Greymantle]

Greenwood, the quote you cite does not conradict my secondary source. I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree, but the Tyler says that there were Uruk-hai in the service of Saruman. She does not specify whether these were A. Saruman's own breed of Sauron's creation, B. Saruman's creation alone, or C. Renegade, mercenary Uruk-hai of Mordor. Personally I find option C the most likely, but I do think Saruman bred his own as a part of his genetic experiments.

[aragil]

There is no direct statement that the Uruk-hai belong to Saruman and Saruman only. If there were, then we couldn't have this very lively and Tolkien-oriented debate! There is a lot of contextual evidence, in my opinion, in favor of Uruk-hai belonging to Isengard. First of all, Greenwood has several times typed out the passage where Ugluk strongly identifies himself as Uruk-hai, and very closely follows that with his allegiance to Saruman. This could be taken as an indicating that the Uruk-hai are particular creations of Saruman. Secondly, there is the fact that Tolkien makes very clear mention of Uruks as being servants of Mordor, but never says the same for Uruk-hai. Tolkien spends several pages discussing the various breeds of orcs in the Two Towers and Return of the King. If the terms Uruk and Uruk-hai were truly interchangeable, then you would expect that at some point in his discussions Tolkien would mix the two terms. But he does not. Uruk is always used when referring to the improvements made on orcs by Sauron, Uruk-hai is only used when referring to the troops of Isengard. In your opinion this might not be enough evidence to say, but in my mind it tips the scales beyond 50-50, which is good enough for me.

[Greenwood]

Where, may I ask, does LotR definitively state that the Uruk-hai were originally the creations of Saruman? I'm not saying that it does not state it, but I've quoted my secondary source; show us your priumary source, and we can talk about it.

Greymantle

I have given direct quotes from LOTR several times in the course of this discussion. Scroll back and read them. I am not going to repeat them again.

Aragil

I agree. Tolkien makes it clear in LOTR that the Uruk-hai are different from the Uruks or any other orcs and that they are special to Saruman. You must always beware secondary sources whether they are named Tyler or even Tolkien (as in C. Tolkien).

To everybody

My whole point in this little exercise on the distinction between orcs, Uruks and Uruk-hai is that some of the self-proclaimed purists have a tendency to make statements that they claim are facts that cannot be supported in the writing of Tolkien, yet they condemn to damnation anyone who makes an interpretation of LOTR that they don't agree with, even if that interpretation can be supported with direct quotes from Tolkien. I agree that the individual item under discussion can easily be labeled as nit-picking (something the purists seem to love to do except when it goes against them), but the principle is not "nit-picky." (If that is a word. :) )

[Greymantle]

Aragil- your point about contextual evidence pointing to the Uruuk-hai as the creations of Saruman is a valid one, though I would disagree. However, I don't think that arguing the difference bewteen Uruk and Uruk-hai makes a lot of sense. My own speculation has lead me to believe that "Uruk" essentially means "Orc," and that "-hai" either means "race" or is some sort of unspecified plural suffix. The term itself is not very specific, so it's very hard to base an argument on it either way without a definitive translation available. I, for one, have always used "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" as interchangable terms, the latter being somewhat more formal. I see no evidence to distinguish the two; though, I don't know precisely which passage in TT you're talking about. Could you cite page nubers or chapter?

[Thorin]

Aragil,

Your statements jar my memory and are very much appreciated. There does seem to be a distinction between the black Uruks of Mordor and the Uruk-hai. In light of ambiguous references and lack of support, and until further evidence proves otherwise, I humbly bow and concede to the opinion that Uruk-hai were created from orcs and man by Saruman.

However....they could have been created from the Uruks, for they were large..
And there is no way they came from pods...that will always be PJ's twisted, low-budget horror movie-past creation. :)

[Greymantle]

Oh, Greenwood... about your Treebeard quote.

"Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand."
(The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 190)

Just thought you'd like to know. :p

[ReadWryt]

Firstly, Uruk is the Black Speech term for Orc, and Uruk and Uruk-hai are not interchangable. If something doesn't mention the name Uruk-hai then it may not be Uruk-hai. (Orc oroginally being the Old English word for Demon)

I am still searching for a reference which, in Tolkien's hand, contains the events with some accuracy of TA 2475. Presumably this makes reference to Uruk-hai, either by name or by description as being very much different then normal Orcs. (There is a hole in my HoMe collection) Supposedly they were first seen in the assaults on Ithilien and Osgiliath in the middle days of the Third Age, before Saruman the White had turned over to the Dark Lord.

As for Treebeard's accounting of things, Tolkien states in Letter #153..

Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has great memory and some earthly wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a bit he does not know or understand. He does not know what `wizards' are, or whence they came. ...this he states in reference to Treebeard's claim that the dark lord `made' Orcs and Trolls.

I'm still researching any texts Tolkien has written about the origins of the Uruk-hai, and hopefully before long can respond in full.

[Greymantle]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Firstly, Uruk is the Black Speech term for Orc, and Uruk and Uruk-hai are not interchangable.
Do you have any idea what the suffix "-hai" means, then? If "Uruk" means "Orc," then Tyler's "Uruk-hai" meaning "the Orcs" or "Orc-race" seems logical enough (I don't know whether or not she has a good source for this). This, in turn, would lead me to believe that "-hai" is simply a plural suffix to imply specific reference to a group of things. I could be wrong, but in this scenario, the two words would be nearly interchangable; "Uruks" being a CT plural of "Uruk" or "Orc," while "Uruk-hai" being the Black Speech for the Orcish kind.
But then the term "Uruk-hai" comes to mean something else altogether... argh, this is too confusing.

I'm checking HotLotR (which, I believe, is the hole in your HoME) for references to the Uruks or the Uruk-hai.

[aragil]

Thank you Thorin! I'm sure that if there is a difference then the Uruk-hai would be derived from Uruks. If you're going to improve on a design, then it would make sense to start with the best currently available.
Greymantle- I have a suspicion that your argument about 'hai' would be the same one that Robert Foster, Tyler, the webmaster at encyclopedia of Arda, et al. would use to justify the lack of distinction in their respective publications. It's a good one, it just doesn't convince me (I hate delving into the black speech to find answers).
Quotes:
Gamling: 'But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun' (page 180 of my copy of TT, about the middle of 'Helm's Deep'.
I take this reference of Gamling's to be directed in general to Saruman's forces, not just his human-looking half orc spies, which would certainly be in the minority in this force. How do these same half-orcs identify themselves?
Orcs: 'Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.' ... 'What of the dawn? We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm.' (sort of like the US post office. Comes from page 184).
The more general references in the Two Towers come from the chapter the Uruk-Hai, where there is much distinction made by Tolkien regarding the differences between Sauron's Orcs and those of Isengard. Perhaps the Mordor orcs were not Sauron's best, but what else would he be saving them for? The raid on the fellowship was clearly a commando-style mission which would require Sauron's quickest, most intelligent orcs. These would have been Mordor's equivalent of the Uruk-hai, yet Ugluk's speech 'We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We slew the great warrior' clearly does not include 'the maggots and apes of Lugburz'.
Final quote, Gorbag, page 441 of the Two Towers: 'I say something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks.'
This is the quote that I thought came out of Return of the King. It's certainly in the context where Gorbag could have used the term Uruk-hai as Ugluk did earlier, but here is where I see that Mordor orcs are always Uruks, Isengarders always Uruk-hai. On a somewhat interesting side note, in Return of the King the 'tracker orc' refers to Lugburz's culprit in the Cirith Ungol mess as 'a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man then it must be a pack of rebel Urukhai or maybe it's all the lot together.' (ROTK, p.247) Of course, in this case we don't know if 'rebel Urukhai' is intended to mean another pack of Mordor orcs gone 'bad' (like Gorbag's), or else some of Saruman's on a raid of Mordor.

[aragil]

RRRRRR!!!!!
Why....Can't....People....Refrain...From....Postin g....While....I'm....busy...typing??!! (Kicks computer with each word to emphasize point). Oh well, late again. I meant to post right after Thorin and right before Harad.

[aragil]

Further info at:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1411

[Greenwood]

Greenwood, the quote you cite does not conradict my secondary source.

Greymantle

Your secondary source is irrelevant. As both Aragil [thanks Aragil for the additional material] and I have shown through many direct quotations from LOTR the Uruk-hai are consistently treated in the book as distinct from other orcs and as belonging to Saruman with a strong indication that they were in some way created by Saruman. You can pile secondary references from here to the moon and they are still irrelevant when compared to the original text. And though I know you and the other purists will consider me "sacreligious" :) , I am afraid in a question like this even the Tolkien letters you cite are secondary and irrelevant. First, the letters, at least as far as you quote them, say nothing about the question under discussion: Are Uruk-hai distinct from other orcs and do they "belong" to Saruman. As I said above, Aragil and I have given numerous quotes from the LOTR that indicate they are. Second, even authors can make mistakes when speaking of their own creation. The published text of the LOTR must be the ultimate authority, not something Tolkien may have written in a private letter years later. If Tolkien had changed his mind about something in LOTR and then changed the text in a later edition, you might have an argument, (literary scholars have spent their professional lives arguing about changes made between editions of litereary works) but not based on the vague mention in the Tolkien letters you and ReadWryt quote. Tolkien did make changes between different editions of his works, probably the most famous being the change in the ending of the Riddle Game in The Hobbit to get it to fit in with the LOTR, but there has been no evidence he made any changes in regard to the Uruk-hai question. Tolkien was a mere mortal like the rest of us and hence fallible. Most people do not like to admit making a mistake. Your letter from Tolkien about Treebeard sounds, to me, very much like an author who as been embarrassed by some inconsistency between something he has said and something he had a character say, but doesn't want to admit the mistake.

As purists you should all be horrified at the precedent you are trying to set of accepting secondary sources over the actual text of LOTR. If you insist that such material be considered more authoritative than the text of LOTR, than I and others are free to use the movie as a reference in any discussion about LOTR. Why should Tyler begiven greater weight than Jackson?

[Greymantle]

"The published text of the LOTR must be the ultimate authority, not something Tolkien may have written in a private letter years later. If Tolkien had changed his mind about something in LOTR and then changed the text in a later edition, you might have an argument, (literary scholars have spent their professional lives arguing about changes made between editions of litereary works) but not based on the vague mention in the Tolkien letters you and ReadWryt quote."

Tolkien's letter explicitly states that Treebeard's words are not his own. Words of characters in the story must always be questioned to some extent; the very fact that the quote you cited was nothing more than speculation on Treebeard's part would lead me not to hold it as very valuable in this case. On top of this we have a letter that explains how Treebeard was mistaken in his thoughts about the origins of the trolls.

"As purists you should all be horrified at the precedent you are trying to set of accepting secondary sources over the actual text of LOTR."

We (or now only I, I suppose) are/am not putting the secondary source above the primary. However, until I see further evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to accept the secondary source as a complement to the published text, when it all fits together and nothing is contradictory. If you could prove to me that Tyler's theory is definitively incorrect by the LotR text, I would admit that I was incorrect. I don't believe contextual evidence is sufficient.

"If you insist that such material be considered more authoritative than the text of LOTR, than I and others are free to use the movie as a reference in any discussion about LOTR. Why should Tyler begiven greater weight than Jackson?"

You ignore the fact that Jackson directly contradicts the storyline every step of the way. Tyler presents a theory that is in line with the text: in your eyes, a misinterpretation, but not a contradiction. Tyler is a chronicler; Peter Jackson a creator.

[Olwyn]

This was a nifty question - I'd always wondered how orcs and the Uruks were created! Lurtz's birth out of slime was interesting - what was it that Saruman was witnessing, though? I didn't quite catch it but did Lurtz kill an orc straight after popping out of the afore-mentioned "pod"?:confused:

I always wondered if there were female orcs - I figured there weren't and can't remember reading anything to the contrary.

P.S. Good debate, people!

[ReadWryt]

I think that this has gotten turned around...I want the people defending the irrational and unfounded representation of the "Orc Conversion Soup" scene in the movie to come up with "Primary Source" references to Saruman using such methods to do what is constantly being described as "Breeding" by most references in the Silmarillion. It's not the job of the people defending the belief that it is wrong to come up with proof untill we are shown one stick of evidence, in Tolkien's words, that Saruman plopped Orcs into goop and made them into Uruk-hai.

[aragil]

What we are trying to do (I think) is justify why PJ put the pod-hatching scene in the movie. Our argument goes something along the lines of this:
1) Saruman created his own army of orcs.
2) The orcs he created were different than any other orcs that had been seen in Middle-Earth. Physically these orcs were superior to the orcs of Sauron.
3) The term for these orcs might have been Uruk-hai, further differentiating them from the orcs of Sauron.
4) Since these orcs were such a powerful breed, showing Saruman 'creating' them in the movie was a cinematic method to show the wayward wizard's power.

Most of the objection to this argument seems to come to points 2 & 3. I should point out that point 3 is not essential to our argument, but is probably the point which has been debated the most.
How the orcs are actually created in the movie (the major point of objection to the scene) can not be determined, because we (as viewers) do not see what happens prior to the pod-hatching. If ReadWryt's theory about the movie is that the orcs were spawned in the pods, then fine for him. But he can not say that PJ has twisted Tolkien's theory regarding the reproduction of orcs, because ReadWryt is making an assumption about PJ's movie. My assumption is that the Uruk-hai (that is how I refer to them) were bred in some foul crossing of Men and Orcs, exactly as it is written in the books. Tolkien says that Orcs reproduce in the manner of the other children of Illuvatar, so we can assume that they aren't born fully developed. By the action of the movie, Saruman has a very limited amount of time in which to raise an army from scratch. Saruman is given the orders to raise an army while Gandalf is imprisoned in Orthanc, and he looses a portion of that army by the time that the Fellowship leaves Lorien. Here then is a plausible scenario in which this creation could have taken place: Fertilization of the embyo is accomplished by mixing the genetic material of the two races (we definitely do not need to see that on screen), either in the mother's womb or in a 'test tube'. Either way it is then placed in the pods in order to magically accelerate both early development and the later stages of growth that would normally take place after birth. What emerges from the pod is then a fully-grown orc. If the orcs truly had been spawned in the pods as per ReadWryt's theory, then the emerging orc probably should have been an infant. Notice that no point in my argument is contradicted by what we see in the movie or the book. ReadWryt's theory is not really in line with the evidence in the movie, and it directly contradicts what is written in the book.
In summary of my post:
1) PJ showed the pod-hatching to emphasize Saruman's power in creating a new, improved breed of orcs.
2) PJ's portrayal of the orc creation is only at odds with the book if you assume it to be so. I believe this is known as a logical fallacy.

[ReadWryt]

Actually, if one were to look at ALL of ReadWryt's posts here, one would notice that he has taken the position of accepting as an answer that Saruman was simply using some form of transformative magic to convert Orcs into Uruk-hai.

Lets get some semantics straight here. Tolkien was distainfull of the term "created" as Morgoth, Sauron and the rest were "Subcreative" creatures, incapable of making new creatures from nothing, and that they were only empowered to subvert or "Make Mockeries of" through breeding and perhaps magic. I know that this is splitting hairs, and I understand when several of folks have MEANT that he transformed Elves into Orcs and Orcs into Uruk-hai, but for anyone who is not as versed (Read Anal) as I or some others here might misunderstand...

As for the term for these Orcs being Uruk-hai, I give you this information on the etemology of the terms Orc and Uruk from the pen of Tolkien...

Orcs (the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English orc `demon', but only because of its phonetic suitability0 are nowhere clearly stated to be of any particular origin. (ReadWryt's historical note: This letter, dating from the 25th of April, 1954, predates the publication of the Silmarillion by more then 20 years) but since they are servants of the Dark Power, and later of Sauron, niether of whom could, or would, produce living things, they mu8st be `corruptions'. They are not based on direct experience of mine; but owe, I suppose, a good deal to the goblin tradition (goblin is used as a translation in The Hobbit, where orc only occurs once, I think), especially as it appears in the George MacDonald, except for the soft feet which I never believed in. The name has the form orch (pl. yrch) in Sindarin and uruk in the Black Speech.

Logical Falacy is to assume that portraying something never mentioned in the books is ok because nobdy then has proof that it didn't happen. No place in the books does Tolkien describe the manner in which Hobbits relieve themselves, therefor using the same `logic' being applied here, should a filmaker decide to portray Halflings shooting turds out of their ears, it is not wrong because it cannot be proven thusly.

The best we have is a stalemate for now, as we A) Have not seen, nor do I believe that we have yet exhausted all avenues of, definative text from the hand of the good professor stating that Uruk-hai were made different in any particular way. I would have to say that what Saruman was portrayed as doing in the film could not be called merely "Breeding", therefor should we find evidence in Tolkien's works stating that the Uruk-hai were bred to be as they were by whomever did it first, we can assume that he never meant for some genetic car wash process to be the means of conversion. And B) We have yet to see the next film, and I only bring this up because of the Trivia Question in the official Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring(tm) desk calandar for 2002 in which the question is posed "What do the Uruk-hai star life as?" and the answer given is "Maggots". This might be questionable in that, even though there are a good many other questions that relate specifically to the movie such as one about the name of Arwen's horse and what type of creature Gandalf speaks to on top of Orthanc to go get him an Eagle, it is after all the Fellowship of the Ring calandar and we saw nothing to support this in THIS movie.

[aragil]

ReadWryt- sorry to put words into your mouth regarding your argument. I should have used more generic terms like 'If someone has viewed the movie and thinks...', but that would have made the typing more difficult (too much celebration of the new year).
Following the logic of my argument, Saruman was breeding his orcs, so 'created' was absolutely the wrong word for me to use. Of course, your objection (hope I'm not putting words in your mouth again) is that Saruman was portrayed as having created his orcs, so you probably didn't mind my verbiage.
I am OK with a stalemate- my position isn't that the movie correctly portrayed the breeding of orcs, it's that we don't know how the movie portrayed this strand of orc's beginnings, so we can't say that the movie did it wrong.

ps. You know that if I'm leary of secondary material in regards to the books, I'm just going to laugh at secondary material from the film. I mean really, a daily trivia calendar about the movie? Who would give you such a gift? Oh well, I'm sure they meant well.
pps. I think that we are also at a stalemate on the use of Uruk vs Uruk-hai. You are using etymological evidence, very much in the spirit of Tolkien. I am using contextual evidence, of which I have a lot. I'm not going to start a debate on which type of evidence you should embrace.
ppps. I hope Butterbur sends this promptly.

[ReadWryt]

Yeah, of course you had to spell "etymology" correctly...:p What the heck do I own the OED for anyways? Bahahahah! I need to stop using the derned thing as a paperweight, or reach for it at least half as often as I do The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien...

P.S. No need for an appology, had I taken it harshly my complaint would have been directed AT someone...but thanks none the less.

P.P.S. You have to admit, the mental image of Hobbits shooting turds out of their ears is pretty funny, demmit! :D

[Greenwood]

Just want to point out - I saw the movie again and I really don't think the movie portreys orcs as having been spawned out of "pods." The movie shows *saruman's uruks* coming out of sort of pod thingies, but that's to show that they are Saruman's creation.

The birth of actual orcs, however, is not addressed.

Also, I had to watch the credits to see who Lurtz is. He isn't even named in the movie... so what's really the "big deal" as it were?

In the spirit of research I have copied above the original posting by Kris Rhodes that started this thread. To return to the specific points Kris made:

1) There are no pods in the movie
2) There is no character named Lurtz in the movie

The whole pod and Lurtz controversy as far as I can tell is based on rumors from before the movie's release. Neither actually exist in the movie.

The Uruk-hai question arose when ReadWryt posted a message that began: "I'm getting the impression here that folks think that Saruman invented Uruk-hai." and then proceeded to state that Uruk-hai predated Saruman's treachery.

Aragil and I have posted numerous direct quotes from LOTR showing that Tolkien clearly distinguished the Uruk-hai from other orcs and made them Saruman's servants with a clear implication the Uruk-hai were in some fashion derived from orcs by Saruman. I completely agree with Aragil that all the scenes between Saruman and Uruk-hai in the movie are a cinematic shorthand to visually represent the above and I see no violation of the spirit of Tolkien's LOTR in any of it. ReadWryt, Greymantle and other purists may not like how these relationships were shown visually in the movie but they have produced no evidence from the books to back up their blanket statements that these scenes in the movie directly violate the book. I accept that the scenes violate the purists' views, but that is a personal opinion. Please do not state it as a fact or worse, Tolkien's view.

[Thorin]

At the same time though, Greenwood....

To me arguing about our interpretation is me saying, "I think Galadriel's hair must have been about waist long because...."

It is easy to justify and explain after the fact, but what is the initial impression that is left to everyone (and 'horrors beyond horrors' newbie Tolkien-ites) when they've left the theatre?

Can you, and everyone else here, tell me that when you all read the book about the Uruk-hai, there reproducing from pods (Which no matter how much you want to justify after the fact, is the the message NLC wants to send judging from RW's trivia calendar) came into your mind as opposed to regular interbreeding (which is somewhat confirmed or implied by two characters in the book)?

I think, that and the innuendos, the implications, and the previous knowledge we have from Tolkien on the origins of orcs in LoTR and other writings tells you what Tolkien's view was quite clearly...

You can justify that it does not violate the spirit of Tolkien, but the fact is, I've seen a lot of stretching and hoopla explanations that even Biblical scholars doing a Hebrew word study haven't gone to as much great lengths to explain...I think that tells me that some want it to fit with Tolkien and do what ever they can to make it fit rather than admit that the scene was not Tolkien and is a total fabrication.

[Greenwood]

Can you, and everyone else here, tell me that when you all read the book about the Uruk-hai, there reproducing from pods (Which no matter how much you want to justify after the fact, is the the message NLC wants to send judging from RW's trivia calendar) came into your mind as opposed to regular interbreeding (which is somewhat confirmed or implied by two characters in the book)?

Thorin

I will repeat, I do not care and will not waste my time worrying about action figures, trivia calendars, etc. I certainly am not going to take them as a serious source in any discussion. We were talking about the movie here. Movie directors generally have little or no control over the merchandizing arms of the studios (unless you are a Speilberg or a Lucas).

When I first read LOTR, I was young enough that I doubt the details of interbreeding orcs and humans ever entered my mind. In all the readings of the book I have done since, I am happy to say that until this discussion came up, it never occurred to me to think about those graphic details. If the question had been raised I am sure I would have assumed it was some sort of interbreeding in the usual way and would have left it at that. That would still be my view even after seeing the movie.

We now move to making the movie. A choice has been made to show in the movie the Uruk-hai have been "created" (note created does not necessarily mean from nothing) by Saruman and are loyal to him, not Sauron. If we accept your view than we are going to put in something about the mating of orcs with humans or some sort of Middle Earth biochemical lab where Saruman mixes up his Uruk-hai. The first is disgusting and will endanger your PG rating, the second is ludicrous. I suppose you could do some scene where they bring some orc and some squirming, captive human before Saruman and he waves his staff at them and ZAP! they are united into a Uruk-hai, but I really doubt that you would approve of that anymore than what was done in the movie. We are left with the old argument: in a book you can state something and leave it up to the reader's imagination to fill in the details; a movie is a visual medium and a director makes choices as to how to convey visually what was left up to the reader's imagination. This was Jackson's way of visually conveying the creation of the Uruk-hai and that they are loyal to Saruman. I doubt that many viewers were confused.

[Cian]

Some stuff, first two quotes from HoMe:
(of Saruman) in *Morgoths Ring

"... his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile." JRRT

From The War of the Jewels
"It referred, [BS uruk] however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor." JRRT

Appendix A RotK: "In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, ..." JRRT

Appendix F: "... uruk in the black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." JRRT

Interesting I think is Uglúk's boast that Saruman gives the Uruk-hai Man's flesh to eat ... and the apparent jibe is: "It's orc-flesh they eat I'll warrant"

Other uses of BS "hai": in (the Sauron-bred) Olog-hai, and in Oghor-hai, the name given to the Drúedain by Orcs.

~~~ some "secondary" (but v. good sources)~~~
Chris Tolkiens UT index:

"Uruks Anglicized form of Uruk-hai of the Black Speech; a race of Orcs of great size and strength." CT

Noted Tolkien linguists Helge Fauskanger (Ardalambion author), David Salo (worked on recent film) and noted linguist Lisa Star all seem to agree that BS hai denotes something like "folk" or similar.

Just three examples there, I'm not sure if Carl Hostettor agrees (of the linguistic Editorial Team working in conjunction with the Tolkien Estate on 'new' (linguistic based) publications).

--
*Fnote: It might be noted that, generally speaking, the "orc-essays" from which the first quote is taken have a fair 'searching' nature about them ... ie the first quote exists within an essay in which Tolkien is trying to arrive at the truth about Orc stock and etc. :) thinking on paper it might be termed ... whether that affects this particular quote, or not, seems another question. **Second note is that more info surrounds the HoMe quotes given, but this post is long enough.

[ReadWryt]

Thank you Greenwood, you have shown me the way. Just as you have wisely decided not to pay attention to Action Figures, Trivia Calandars etc., I too have decided to ignore Non-Tolkien inventions that are outside of anything described in the books. Therefore I will ignore the "Uruk-hai Assembly Line" from the movie and pretend that Peter Jackson never invented something that has nothing to do with anything that anyone can find evidence to back up in any of Tolkien's writings.

[Greenwood]

Therefore I will ignore the "Uruk-hai Assembly Line" from the movie and pretend that Peter Jackson never invented something that has nothing to do with anything that anyone can find evidence to back up in any of Tolkien's writings.

ReadWryt

A little more ignoring and there might be a lot less moaning and teeth-gnashing around here.:) :)

BTW I never said the "Uruk-hai Assembly Line" portrayed in the movie could be backed up by anything in Tolkien. I have always contended it was a visual/cinematic device for showing that Saruman "created" the Uruk-hai and that their allegiance was to him. The connection of the Uruk-hai with Saruman is what I have tried to demonstrate by the use of extensive quotations from LOTR (again thanks to Aragil for assistance). As of yet no one has come up with anything from LOTR that disputes the quotations put forward.

I have been rather shocked and horrified to find died-in-the-wool purists citing other authors against Tolkien. :eek:

[ReadWryt]

I have been rather shocked and horrified to find died-in-the-wool purists citing other authors against Tolkien.

I aggree, it is shamefull when people feel compelled to defend the inventions of Peter Jackson when they fly in the face of what Tolkien wrote.

In the years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, that first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath. Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings section iv: Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion

Are you willing to claim publicly that ALL orcs are Black and have great strength, or that Saruman was in league with Sauron for over 500 years?

[aragil]

In the years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, that first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath.
Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings section iv: Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion

Are you willing to claim publicly that ALL orcs are Black and have great strength, or that Saruman was in league with Sauron for over 500 years?

I don't think that the above passage has ever been used on these boards to claim that all orcs are black, have great strength, or that Saruman helped in their creating. Nor has anyone ever claimed that orcs were first observed in the year 2475 of the Third Age. What I (and I think Greenwood) have used this passage for is to show that Sauron improved on the designs of Morgoth and bred his own race of orcs, the Uruks. I know that Uruk simply means orc in the Black Speech, but I'll take this moment to remind everybody of a quote which Cian brought to our attention a few posts back:

From The War of the Jewels
"It referred, [BS uruk] however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor." JRRT


Several times in this discussion secondary 'reader's guides' have been cited which claim that Uruk-hai was the term used to describe all of the larger Orcs which were bred in the third age, both those of Sauron and Saruman. Given the scope of these reader's guides, it is doubtfull the authors were able to spend as much time researching every single entry as we (everybody who has posted here) have done on this particular thread. That being said, I think that they were confused on this matter, and passed into publication something which was not supported by the evidence in the original text. I (and others) have given numerous quotes where the orcs of Saruman identify themselves as Uruk-hai, and differentiate themselves from the orcs of Mordor. There are also quotes by numerous characters in the novel which seem to state that the orcs of Saruman are different from the orcs of Sauron. I have even quoted similarly large orcs of Mordor as claiming themselves to be 'Uruks', not Uruk-hai. I here reissue a challenge for anybody to find anywhere in the text where the orcs of Sauron are referred to as Uruk-hai. I think it goes beyond mere coincidence that in 1000+ pages of narrative Tolkien never once definitively refers to Mordor orcs as Uruk-hai, but reserves that term only for the troops of Saruman. I would think that Tolkien made this distinction for a purpose, that he intended the Uruk-hai to be Saruman's own special addition to the race of orcs.

[Greymantle]

I know of nowhere where the term Uruk-hai refers to any Orc of Mordor specifically; however, Cian cited a quote from the Appendix F in which Saruman's Orcs are referred to as Uruks along with Sauron's.
As your previous argument was based upon the fact that all Isengard "super-Orcs" were called "Uruk-hai" and all of Sauron's "super-Orcs" were called Uruks exclusively, the fact that the latter is disproved would, to me at least, discount the former.
I'm maintaining my original position here.... my speculation about etymology seems to coincide with the research of linguists, compilers of guidebooks, and Christopher Tolkien. This now seems to be supported, somewhat, with concrete "primary source" evidence.

Aragil, your postings about the "identification" of the Uruk-hai does not contradict my position; in fact, it complements it and could even be considered to support it. The Uruk-hai of Saruman whom you quote are, as far as I can see, one of three things: 1. The original creations of Saruman, 2. Copies of the Uruks of Mordor or their descendents, or 3. Renegade-turned-mercenary Uruks of Mordor. You would probably agree with Option 1. Option 2 would agree with my position and to some extent with yours: that there were indeed Uruk-hai in Mordor, but that the Uruk-hai of Isengard were the creation of Saruman. Option 3, while not (to my knowledge) directly supported by concrete evidence in the text, does work contextually. Greenwood quoted this from LotR:
"We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... "
This, to me, sounds as though the Uruk-hai (or this band of Uruk-hai) are trying very hard to identify themselves as a group, and make a point of stating that they serve Saruman loyally. We never hear Orcs talking about how proud they are to serve Mordor-- they are slaves and have neither choice nor pay (as far as I know). In this quote, however, the Uruk-hai declare themselves the servants of Saruman with pride, and they make a point of saying that "[The White Hand] gives is man's-flesh to eat." That sounds like payment in return for service, to me. This "primary source" quote would seem to coincide with Option 3, without actually contradicting Options 1 or 2.

[Cian]

We also read that in UT Tolkien had Saruman deploy "uruks". Of interest too may be Tolkien's usage in Letters: (used here as a figure of speech however).

"Urukhai is only a figure of Speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker;..." JRRT

Dunno if that helps really, just tossing it in anyway :)

What do folk think about CT's "anglicization" entry for Uruks?

[Greymantle]

I'm inclined to agree. In a previous post I called "Uruks" a "CT" form of Uruk-hai, meaning "Common Tongue," not "Christopher Tolkien!" But I would now say that "Anglicisation" is the more accurate term.
I've always used "Uruks" and "Uruk-hai" interchangeably, and I still maintain that this is legitimate and correct...

[Greenwood]

Are you willing to claim publicly that ALL orcs are Black and have great strength, or that Saruman was in league with Sauron for over 500 years?

ReadWryt

I have never said anything in any post that could even remotely be connected to the above challenge. I have said, REPEATEDLY, that in the LOTR the term Uruk-hai is clearly differentiated from the terms Uruk and orc. I have also said, repeatedly, that the Uruk-hai are clearly represented as Saruman's troops, in some way "created" by Saruman (I am using created in a broad sense here; if you wish to say derived from other orcs by Saruman, fine, but Uruk-hai were still "created" by Saruman) and that the Uruk-hai are loyal to Saruman.

I aggree, it is shamefull when people feel compelled to defend the inventions of Peter Jackson when they fly in the face of what Tolkien wrote.

ReadWryt

I have also never said anything remotely like the above either.

As long as challenges are being issued, I will repeat my request to you and Greymantle and anyone else who cares to take it up:

Show anyplace in LOTR where the term Uruk-hai is used for any orcs other than Saruman's and further show anyplace in LOTR where it is specifically stated how Saruman "created" his Uruk-hai. The references must be in LOTR, outside compendiums and other sources, including Christopher Tolkien are irrelevant, unless you are going to also admit that you will take the word of others over Tolkien's own words in LOTR.

In the meantime I will repeat, again the quotes that Aragil and I have provided from LOTR:

In the chapter "The Uruk-hai" in The Two Towers, Ugluk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... " (Note the chapter title that Tolkien used.)

In The Two Towers in the chapter "Helm" Deep", Saruman's orcs say: "Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.' ... 'What of the dawn? We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm."

In The Two Towers in the chapter "Treebeard", Treebeard says in talking about Saruman: "He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, ir has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!"

Again in the chapter "Helm's Deep", Glamling says: "But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun." (NOTE: the word bred, derived from breed, in the dictionary has many meetings and is not exclusive to sexual reproduction)

In The Two Towers in the chapter "Flotsam and Jetsam", Aragorn says: "We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep."

If you cannot produce anything from Tolkien's LOTR to refute the direct quotations above from LOTR, then it means that:

1) the Uruk-hai are Saurman's troops
2) the Uruk-hai were produced by Saruman in some unspecified way
3) you cannot prove that the cinematic representation in the movie is wrong. For all you know Saruman threw a full-grown man and a full-grown orc into the muck and waved his staff over it and said: "Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble, I pronounce you a Uruk-hai." (All in the correct Middle-Earthian language, of course.)

[Greenwood]

Greymantle

I don't care if you have used Uruk and Uruk-hai interchangeably your whole life or how many compendiums by outside authors you cite. You have no justification for using them interchangeably. I have given many quotes from LOTR (see previous post) showing that Tolkien in LOTR clearly differentiates between Uruk-hai and all other orcs (Uruks). You have given nothing but your unsubstantiated assertion to the contrary.

Give me a direct quotation from Tolkien's LOTR that says the term Uruk-hai is equivalent to the terms Uruk or orc, or admit you are wrong. This should be a simple matter for an "unashamed purist" like yourself. Show me a quotation!

[Thrakerzog]

This is a most enjoyable thread to read.
It seems Readwryt and Greymantle (who is finally on topic) are at a lose for quote's to support themselves. It is funny how they yet continue to twist and writh instead of admitting they where wrong. :)

Job well done Greenwood. ;)

Quick question -
The ability to fight during the day is something that is applied to Sarumons orcs several times, is it ever applied to the orcs of Sauron?

Greymantle,
Surely it has been made very clear that the Uruk and Uruk-hai are different if only because the Uruk-hai are able to stand in the sun.
Unless you can provide proof in Tolkiens words that Sauron's Uruk where able to stand in the sun without fear, how can you claim they are the same as Uruk-hai?

[Greenwood]

The ability to fight during the day is something that is applied to Sarumons orcs several times, is it ever applied to the orcs of Sauron?

Thrakerzog

Good question! I will have to give it some thought. Off the top of my head it seems like except for when Ugluk is driving them in the chapter "Uruk-hai" in The Two Towers and when Grishnakh reappears later in the chapter, obviously because Sauron is very concerned about news that Saruman's troops have captured halflings, I cannot think of any instance where Sauron's orc troops are specifically stated to be out under the sun, quite the contrary. It seems to me that whenever they go into battle during daytime hours it is under a dense cloud cover produced by Sauron. Perhaps the purists can help us out on this one. :) :)

[Cian]

Here's something, from "The Land of Shadow" RotK:

"Whose blame's that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Urukhai; or maybe it's all the lot together."

[aragil]

Originally posted by aragil
On a somewhat interesting side note, in Return of the King the 'tracker orc' refers to Lugburz's culprit in the Cirith Ungol mess as 'a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man then it must be a pack of rebel Urukhai or maybe it's all the lot together.' (ROTK, p.247) Of course, in this case we don't know if 'rebel Urukhai' is intended to mean another pack of Mordor orcs gone 'bad' (like Gorbag's), or else some of Saruman's on a raid of Mordor.

[Greenwood]

Cian

See Aragil's post. That quote is ambiguous at best and does not directly contradict all the other citations he and I have provided from LOTR.

[aragil]

We still seem to be passing eachother in the ether!

[Cian]

Didn't see your ref. to it at the end of an earlier post. Oh well it happens, as sometimes I don't have time to read all of everything posted.

Tossing it into the mix, maybe other folk missed it too :)

[Greenwood]

Hey ReadWryt! Greymantle!

Finished reading LOTR yet? Just checking to see if you have found any quotes to back up your earlier assertions as Aragil and I requested.

[Greymantle]

I have given many quotes from LOTR (see previous post) showing that Tolkien in LOTR clearly differentiates between Uruk-hai and all other orcs (Uruks).

I've seen only two quotes from LotR that you have cited, neither of which directy asserted your opinion nor contradicted mine. The first was pure speculation on the part of Treebeard, whom, Tolkien later says, is not always to be trusted as a definitive source of information (unlike, say, the Wise). Your second quote, the declaration of Ugluk, asserted definately nothing more than that this band of Uruk-hai were in the service of Saruman. If anything, this quote supports my "mercenary" opinion which I argued in a previous post.


You have given nothing but your unsubstantiated assertion to the contrary.

I (and others) have cited guidebooks (which agreed with my opinion), the LotR appendix (which, by any reasonable interpretation, would support my position) and the writings of Christopher Tolkien, whom I have chosen to trust as the greatest and most legitimate living authority on his father's works.
You have cited two quotes from LotR, the first of which can be easily discounted (it is entirely speculation on a part of a fallible character) and the second of which can be interpreted so openly as to support my position!


Give me a direct quotation from Tolkien's LOTR that says the term Uruk-hai is equivalent to the terms Uruk or orc, or admit you are wrong. This should be a simple matter for an "unashamed purist" like yourself. Show me a quotation!

I could ask you to do the same thing. It would seem to me that we have come to a stalemate: neither of us can find definitive quotes to support our own position. I'm willing to accept the linguistic, etymological, and contextual evidence from the "primary source" that the Uruk-hai of Isengard and the Uruks of Mordor are of the same speces. You wish to support the contextual evidence of quotes from two characters, and the valid point that the term "Uruk-hai" is never used to refer to the Orcs of Mordor. If you were to present me with a definitive quote from LotR, I would cede my postion. But seeing as you cannot (and despite the multitudes of indirect evidence for both of your positions), I suggest we declare stalemate on this issue.

Greenwood: as for your last (unwarrented and rude) comment, I have been away from my computer since last night, when you posted.
Thrakerzog: I see you have not decided to give up treating me like trash, and I've given up expecting you to. As for your Orcish question, I have never declared that all of Sauron's Orcs were Uruk-hai; rather, only that the specific Uruks were of the same breed.

[aragil]

OK, this is my last shot at breaking the stalemate, in 3 quotes:

1)(of Saruman) in Morgoths Ring

"... his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile." JRRT
(thank you Cian).

This is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Saruman did his own breeding. Before going on I would like to remind you that Sauron probably fed his orcs as well, so Ugluk's claim that he gets food from Saruman can hardly be taken as payment for services. Now, whether the Men-orcs which JRRT says Saruman bred are the same as the Uruk-hai can be addressed with quotes to follow. I apologize to Greenwood for deviating from the strict LotR text, but as Greymantle stated that he trusts 'the writings of Christopher Tolkien, whom I have chosen to trust as the greatest and most legitimate living authority on his father's works', I thought you'd be particularly given to a quote by JRRT that CT decided to publish in HoME.

2)Gamling, regarding the forces of Saruman at Helm's Deep (page 180 of my copy of TT, about the middle of Helm's Deep)

"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun."

Now we have proof that the same monstrosities that JRRT attributes to the creation of Saruman (half-orcs/men-orcs) were present at the battle of Helm's Deep. Furthermore we know that particular to these orcs, they will not quail at the sun. Notice that Gamling did not say "Orcs will not quail at the sun", but instead insisted that it was only the half-orcs of Saruman, 'these creatures of Isengard' that would not quail at the sun.

3)The Orcs of Saruman, addressing Aragorn above the wall of the citadel of Helm's Deep (page 184 of my copy of The Two Towers)

"Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai. ... What of the dawn? We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm."

I think this is the key quote. It draws on the point above where Gamling says that the half-orcs bred by Saruman would not quail at the light of day. Now the orcs themselves are saying that they will not quail at the light of day. The orcs further draw notice to the greatness of their army- it is large and it will not quail at the light of day. This can only mean that it is the majority of the force that will not quail at the light of day, else it would have been an idle boast of the orcs. "Look at the greatness of our force, but look less closely in the morning, when it will be less great, for most will be quailing at the light of day" is just not the sense you get from this quote. This means that the majority of the force is that bred by Saruman, as Gamling had just stated that it is only the half-orcs bred by Saruman that will not quail at the light of day. Notice that these are also the exclusive breed of Saruman, which has earned him such a black name from the pen of JRRT. If Sauron had first created these half-orcs and then loaned them to Saruman, then Saruman would hardly have earned such a black name. Finally, note that the orcs (who would not quail at the light of day and were therefore the half-orcs bred by Saruman) identify themselves as Uruk-hai. Why would they use the same title as another breed of orcs, when they are so clearly different from any breed which has been around before? Should they instead be saying "We are the Uruk-hai, but do not confuse us with the Uruk-hai of Sauron, we are the half-orc Uruk-hai bred by Saruman which do not quail at the light of day!"? No indeed! They are the Uruk-hai, which is synonymous with saying that they will not quail at the light of day, which means that they are the half-orcs bred by Saruman, which are Saruman's and Saruman's alone else Tolkien would not have held it as Saruman's greatest crime.

[Greenwood]

Greymantle

I suggest you take a course in remedial math. There are five direct quotes from LOTR in my post supporting the position that Tolkien distinguishs the Uruk-hai from other orcs and makes them clearly Saruman's. In two of them the Uruk-hai themselves declare themselves special. Aragil has supplied additional quotes and analysis (thanks Aragil) showing the specialness of the Uruk-hai. There is the additional evidence in the exchange between Thrakerzog and myself in which it is pointed out that, with a single exception of when they are being driven by Uruk-hai, Sauron's orcs do not venture forth under the open sun (this point is elaborated on in Aragil's last post). There is no evidence that there are any Uruk-hai in existence anywhere except in Saruman's service to "support your mercernary theory". Against all of the evidence of Tokien's intent, taken directly from Tolkien's own work, we have your citation of outside compendiums and some vague reference to Tolkien saying that Treebeard is not him.

There is no stalemate here. There is just your blind obstinance in sticking to an untenable position. You have no right to call yourself a purist when you take other author's words over Tolkien's own. You have given up the moral right to complain about Jackson's, or anyone else's, interpretation of LOTR.

[ReadWryt]

Perhaps someone can explain to me why it is that the only place in The Lord of the Rings where the term "uruk" is used to describe a particular kind of Orc is to say,

"In the years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, that first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath."

Someone posted that the contents of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien were a "Secondary" source and that anything Tolkien had written since The Lord of the Rings was moot. Well, there you go. Tolkien, for some reason, felt it necessary to distinguish THESE orcs, which were different from normal orcs, as Uruk. Since the quote that I posted before from the Letters is obviously not worthy of consideration because it was written years later, it seems to me that there is no evidence in the entire Lord of the Rings that shows the terms Uruk and Orc to be freely interchangable, therefor when he used the term Uruk in the above quote from Appendix A he obviously was refering to Uruks as OPPOSED to mere Orcs. Of course this is a silly semantical argument because the terms Uruk-hai and Orc are interchanged often...but it was worth a try...My actual point is that there is noplace in the book where Uruk is used for anything other then Uruk-hai, unless you want to attempt to color this as being the only place where it happens.

[Cian]

As said, Tolkien does explain that the term uruk, from Black Speech, applied as a rule to the great soldier Orcs issuing both out of Mordor and Isengard (at this time).

The Prof. also points out that the word uruk was related to Sindarin orch, and was apparently used as a distinguisher between lesser kinds, called snaga "slave".

[or as David Salo writes is possible: *snagahai :):):)]

It might interest, those interested in Tolkiens languages at the least, to read a bit on the Elvish words deriving from stem *RUKU, and a little bit of the background for "orcish" words as given in Quendi and Eldar:

"Already in PQ that word must have been formed which had in CE the form *rauko or *raukó. This was applied to the larger and more terrible of the enemy shapes. But ancient were also the forms uruk, uruk/ó, and the adjective urká 'horrible'.

In Sindarin is found the corresponding urug (which might be translated 'bogey' JRRT ~ note inserted by Cian from same text); but there is in frequent use the form orch, which must derive from *urkó or the adjectival *urká.

The form in Adunaic urku, urkhu may be direct from Quenya or Sindarin; and this form underlies the words for orc in the languages of Men of the North-West in the Second and Third Ages. The Orcs themselves adopted it, for the fact that it reffered to terror and detestation delighted them. The word uruk that occurs in the Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him from the Elvish tongues of earlier times." JRR Tolkien Quendi and Eldar

[Thrakerzog]

Since we are using totally random sources of information I thought I would throw this quote in there:

Saruman was not completely pleased with Sauron’s Orc soldiers, so he bred new Orc creatures called Uruk-hai

Here it is, a direct quote stating point blank that Saruman created Uruk-hai. Now, here are the abilities attributed to Uruk-hai:

· Uruk-hai are as tall as the tallest Men, black-skinned and black-blooded. They are larger, stronger and fiercer in battle than Men, as their only objective is to kill.

· Uruk-hai do not weaken in sunlight.

· When in battle, the Uruk-hai sometimes wear black armor and carried straight swords and poisoned arrows, and spears. They are also marked on their faces or bodies by the White Hand of Saruman.

By Greymantle's standards, this is incontrovertible proof because, well, someone wrote it down!
Kind of the same as his "scholars" argument - If it's written by some random person, it must be true! To heck with what JRR wrote!

And here is my exulted and unquestionable source:
http://www.lordoftherings.net/
Just click on the link that says "Learn more about the Orcs and Uruk-hai" for all the proof you need.

[Greymantle]

I can see that Greenwood and Thrakerzog have to decided to ignore any and all posts of mine and Cian's.

"I suggest you take a course in remedial math. There are five direct quotes from LOTR in my post supporting the position that Tolkien distinguishs the Uruk-hai from other orcs and makes them clearly Saruman's."

I'm sorry, but I've searched carefully twice through this thread, and I've only seen your Treebeard and Ugluk quotes. It's possible I missed something, seeing as it was late last night. If you could refresh my memory, I'd appreciate it.
Neither of the quotes I saw definitively supported your position. The first was sepculation on the part of Treebeard, which (even if it were correct) would only indirectly support your postition. The second, as I've said before, says nothing except that there are Uruk-hai who are fiercely loyal to Saruman. Nowhere in that quote is it said that they are his creation.

"There is the additional evidence in the exchange between Thrakerzog and myself in which it is pointed out that, with a single exception of when they are being driven by Uruk-hai, Sauron's orcs do not venture forth under the open sun (this point is elaborated on in Aragil's last post)."

As I made a point of saying, I did not say that all of the Orcs of Mordor were Uruks. I will review the text when I have a break from finals review today to refresh my memory as to the specific properties of the Orcs of Sauron.

"There is no evidence that there are any Uruk-hai in existence anywhere except in Saruman's service to 'support your mercenary theory.'"

This quote has been cited several times on this thread: "Whose blame's that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together." This existence of "rebel" Uruk-hai would lead one to believe that some could have become mercenaris for the White Hand. This is, of course, entirely open to interpretation, but I have chosen my position.

"Against all of the evidence of Tokien's intent, taken directly from Tolkien's own work, we have your citation of outside compendiums and some vague reference to Tolkien saying that Treebeard is not him."

Like I said, it would seem that you have not bothered to read the relevant posts on this thread. Cian has posted multiple times with valuable quotes. Most notably is the reference in Appendix F, which I would take more seriously than any speculation of Treebeard.
"... uruk in the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."
This, a direct quote from LotR, asserts more definately our position than any of your quotes do yours. What's more, it's supported by this from Appendix A:
"In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor."...and this from HoME, Volume 11 (J.R.R):
"It referred, [BS uruk] however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor."

"There is no stalemate here. There is just your blind obstinance in sticking to an untenable position."

I could say the same for you. You have asked for quotes from LotR, and you have them, but you will continue to ignore it and continue to argue your point. Again, I propose stalemate. This is going nowhere.

"You have no right to call yourself a purist when you take other author's words over Tolkien's own. You have given up the moral right to complain about Jackson's, or anyone else's, interpretation of LOTR."

Sheesh, and you complained about me making definate statements...

[Thrakerzog]

I see you have not decided to give up treating me like trash, and I've given up expecting you to. As for your Orcish question, I have never declared that all of Sauron's Orcs were Uruk-hai; rather, only that the specific Uruks were of the same breed.

Greymantle, you stop twisting my and Greenwoods words (and cutting them out all together when you see fit) and maybe we will start treating you with more respect.

NEVER did I say anything close to asserting that you said all of Sauron's Orcs were Uruk-hai.
In fact, I specifically asked you to provide PROOF "that the specific Uruks were of the same breed."

I will restate what I said in simpler, more direct and easy to understand words:
I said that the burden of proof is on you to prove your own theory that Uruk and Uruk-hai are interchangeable names.

1. Several times it is stated that Uruk-hai (Sarumon's creation) are able to stand in sunlight without being weakened.
Do you disagree with this? If so, based on what?

2. Every single time it is mentioned that an "orc" has the ability to stand in the sunlight without being weakened, it is either called an orc of Sarumon's, called an Uruk-hai or both. When it is called an orc it is by someone who does not know their true name (such as Treebeard talking about Sarumons new orcs able to stand fully in the sun). When it is called an Uruk-hai, it is by the Uruk-hai themselves or someone who knows their full and proper name.
Can you provide any proof that contradicts this?

3. Uruk-hai is only used when referencing the servant's of Sarumon in LotR's.
Can you provide any proof that contradicts this?

4. The "Guide Books" which agree with your opinion, where they penned by JRR Tolkien? Or is it possible the authors made the same misinformed interpretation you did after failing to recognize all of the facts.
Is it at all possible the "Guide Book" authors where wrong about what JRR Tolkien thought? No hedging, just Yes or No.

Greymantle,
I have made this as absolutely clear and easy as possible. I have numbered the questions so nothing is missed.

[Thrakerzog]

This quote has been cited several times on this thread: "Whose blame's that?' said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together."

This?! This is your PROOF?!?!?!?!
This is nothing more then a random GUESS?! They could be talking of a great Elf in bright armour or maybe a sort of small dwarf-man or maybe a pack of rebel Uruk-hai, hell maybe it's the Fellowship of the Rong - the Elf, Dwarf-man and Uruk-hai all the lot together... Hay, it might even be Radagast and Sauron hanging out together!!



"... uruk in the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."
"In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor."...and this from HoME, Volume 11 (J.R.R):
"It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor."

[b]Uruk DOES NOT EQUAL Uruk-hai. If you say it does, PROVIDE PROOF.
Not in ANY of these quotes does it say the Uruk have the ability to FIGHT during the DAY as is stated of Sarumons Uruk-hai.

Orc - low life scum
Uruk - low life scum, but of great strenght first from Mordor
Uruk-hai - low life scum, but of great strenght that can fight during the day.

[Greymantle]

Not proof, Thrakerzog; evidence. This statement supports my "mercenary" theory, which was what Greenwood was asking for. Calm down.
I don't see how a quote stating that the term uruk referred to the "great soldier-Orcs" of both Mordor and Isengard can be reasonably interpreted any differently than that they are of the same breed. This is not enough for you, I see. You have not provided definitive proof of your position; neither have I. Both sides have presented large amounds of contextual evidence. As I've said before, this argument isn't going to end.
I will address your previous post later, when I have some time.

[Thrakerzog]

Quote from Treebeard,
"He has taken up with foul folk, with the Orcs. Brm, hoom! Worse than that he has been doing something to them; something dangerous. For these Isengarders are more like wicked Men. It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, ir has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!"

Now, as you have stated, Treebeard is not worldly like the wizards are, but surely you MUST believe what he see's with his very own eyes:
"It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman's Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it."

Treebeards home is right next to Isenguard, he is DAMN sure that SARUMAN'S ORCS can "abide the Sun", though he has never seen this before. He also calls them "orcs" instead of Uruk-Hai simply because he is not wise like the wizards and does not know there TRUE name. So he uses what he knows.

It's just like calling a tree a tree instead of an Oak or a Maple because you don't know the real name. I see a tree I don't make up a name for it or randomly guess at what it might be called, I just call it a Tree.

If you hire a mercenary band, as you seem to want to propose, you sure as hell don't spend the money just to have them go chop down tree's (as the orcs that could "abide the Sun" where doing) when you have your own orcs that can do that easy enough. No, you use your own orcs for such an easy task, not a force that you are specially paying... The whole mercenary idea is a joke.

[Thrakerzog]

"Not proof, Thrakerzog; evidence. This statement supports my "mercenary" theory, which was what Greenwood was asking for."

Ah yes, the "mercenary" theory you pulled out of your... head, from nothing.

"I don't see how a quote stating that the term uruk referred to the "great soldier-Orcs" of both Mordor and Isengard can be reasonably interpreted any differently than that they are of the same breed."

You ASSUME Greymantle. Do you know what happens when you ASSUME?
You ASSUME that there can't be two separate breeds - Uruk & Uruk-hai. The Uruk-hai were specifically bred by Sarumon.
NO ONE ever said that URUK don't serve Sarumon AND Mordor.
NO ONE ever said that these URUK didn't come from Mordor.
It has been clearly stated, and clearly proved that URUK-HAI are a CREATION of Sarumon with the special ability to FIGHT DURING THE DAY.

"This is not enough for you, I see. You have not provided definitive proof of your position; neither have I."
You are wrong, clear proof has been provided, you simply are not able to contradict it so you ignore it.

"As I've said before, this argument isn't going to end."
The only reason this argument wouldn't end would be because you will continue to avoid clear proof.

[Cian]

Aragorn indeed says there were many 'half-orcs' at Helm's Deep, he is talking about folk among the Man-battalions (marching orcs, and orcs mounted on wolves being first described) who were Man-high: "... but with Goblin faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed." ~ folk that reminded both Aragorn and Merry of the Southerner at Bree, though he was not so obviously "orc-like" as most of these.

~~~
In the Battle of the Fords or Isen we learn that Saruman sent a strong force of his best fighters to attack the garrison of the Fords, a troop of Uruks among them. Also among Sarumans troops, and reasonably distinguished from well-trained Uruks are 'orc-men'.

"The garrison of the east bank, surprised by the sudden assault of the massed Uruks, was swept away, and the Riders that had just crossed from the West were caught still in disarray, and though they fought desperately they were driven from the fords along the line of the Isen with the Uruks in pursuit.

As soon as the enemy had gained possession of the eastern end of the Fords there appeared a company of men or orc-men (evidently dispatched for the purpose), ferocious, mail-clad, and armed with axes."

Interesting here, in the account, is Tolkiens choice (as narrator) to frequently use anglicized Uruks rather than Uruk-hai throughout. The Uruks fight in the day, seem distinguished from 'orc-men', and the forces that Merry describes in LotR are mentioned: of that force it was said that the Orcs were less avail against Grimbold's shieldwall because of their stature, so that Dunlendish hillmen were thrown against it.

There's also reference to the training of Sarumans Uruks regarding their speed and endurance while heavily armed. I note also Uglúks commentary in LotR: directly after the Northerners complain about running in the sun he calls them "half-trained" mountain-maggots.

Interesting stuff to chew on here. The source, albeit not LoTR proper, is the Prof. :) as such, well worth considering Imo. Cheers

[aragil]

Originally posted by aragil
OK, this is my last shot at breaking the stalemate, in 3 quotes:

1)(of Saruman) in Morgoths Ring

"... his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile." JRRT
(thank you Cian).

This is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Saruman did his own breeding. Before going on I would like to remind you that Sauron probably fed his orcs as well, so Ugluk's claim that he gets food from Saruman can hardly be taken as payment for services. Now, whether the Men-orcs which JRRT says Saruman bred are the same as the Uruk-hai can be addressed with quotes to follow. I apologize to Greenwood for deviating from the strict LotR text, but as Greymantle stated that he trusts 'the writings of Christopher Tolkien, whom I have chosen to trust as the greatest and most legitimate living authority on his father's works', I thought you'd be particularly given to a quote by JRRT that CT decided to publish in HoME.

2)Gamling, regarding the forces of Saruman at Helm's Deep (page 180 of my copy of TT, about the middle of Helm's Deep)

"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun."

Now we have proof that the same monstrosities that JRRT attributes to the creation of Saruman (half-orcs/men-orcs) were present at the battle of Helm's Deep. Furthermore we know that particular to these orcs, they will not quail at the sun. Notice that Gamling did not say "Orcs will not quail at the sun", but instead insisted that it was only the half-orcs of Saruman, 'these creatures of Isengard' that would not quail at the sun.

3)The Orcs of Saruman, addressing Aragorn above the wall of the citadel of Helm's Deep (page 184 of my copy of The Two Towers)

"Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai. ... What of the dawn? We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm."

I think this is the key quote. It draws on the point above where Gamling says that the half-orcs bred by Saruman would not quail at the light of day. Now the orcs themselves are saying that they will not quail at the light of day. The orcs further draw notice to the greatness of their army- it is large and it will not quail at the light of day. This can only mean that it is the majority of the force that will not quail at the light of day, else it would have been an idle boast of the orcs. "Look at the greatness of our force, but look less closely in the morning, when it will be less great, for most will be quailing at the light of day" is just not the sense you get from this quote. This means that the majority of the force is that bred by Saruman, as Gamling had just stated that it is only the half-orcs bred by Saruman that will not quail at the light of day. Notice that these are also the exclusive breed of Saruman, which has earned him such a black name from the pen of JRRT. If Sauron had first created these half-orcs and then loaned them to Saruman, then Saruman would hardly have earned such a black name. Finally, note that the orcs (who would not quail at the light of day and were therefore the half-orcs bred by Saruman) identify themselves as Uruk-hai. Why would they use the same title as another breed of orcs, when they are so clearly different from any breed which has been around before? Should they instead be saying "We are the Uruk-hai, but do not confuse us with the Uruk-hai of Sauron, we are the half-orc Uruk-hai bred by Saruman which do not quail at the light of day!"? No indeed! They are the Uruk-hai, which is synonymous with saying that they will not quail at the light of day, which means that they are the half-orcs bred by Saruman, which are Saruman's and Saruman's alone else Tolkien would not have held it as Saruman's greatest crime.

I like this post. I spent a lot of time writing it. So could somebody please tell me how it is ambiguous? I think the three quotes within the post establish that:
1)Sarumen bred his own orcs
2)The orcs Sarumen bred were human/orc crosses
3)The human/orc crosses which Saruman bred could stand the sunlight
4)The human/orc crosses which Saruman bred who could stand the sunlight made up the bulk of the Orc forces at Helm's Deep.
5)The human/orc crosses which Saruman bred who could stand the sunlight and who made up the bulk of Saruman's forces at Helm's Deep identified themselves as Uruk-hai, not as Saruman's orc/human hybr