Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[aragil]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Orcs were part of the force that cut Imrahil off from Eomer, because when Imrahil counter attacked he drove the troll-men, Variags, and orcs before him. Did the Orcs just magically appear? (Of course what I am actually waiting for is the reasonable counter argument, which I would probably agree with). Obviously they were their fighting in the sun and well enough to cut off Imrahil from Eomer. If they were not there they could not be driven forth.

Honestly, if I knew what you were looking for, and that you would agree with it, I'd post it. The text describes the forces seperating Imrahil from Eomer very explicitly. There is no mention of orcs. There is not even a mention of 'legion' or anything else vague that could be interpreted as orcs. There are Easterling, Southrons, Variags, and Far-haradrim. No possibility of Orcs. These are the forces that are sent to separate Eomer and Imrahil, a force which fights reasonably well. Later, elements of this force are mentioned as being driven Eastward by Imrahil. My interpretation is that they are driven along with orcs that had been routing from the outset. Since there is no mention of Orcs being sent to separate Eomer and Imrahil, I believe this is a good interpretation.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Your reasoning is specious at best.

Your posting style is impolite, at best. If you think your continuous insults somehow enhance your contribution to these boards, then you are sadly mistaken. Facts like Orcs being described in the Morgul host are welcome contributions. Insults about my reasoning skills are not.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
In 'The Siege of Gondor' it is reported that:
"A man rode in haste from the fords, saying that a host had issued from Minas Morgul and was already drawing nigh to Osgiliath; and it had been joined by regiments from the South, Haradrim, cruel and tall."
Later Gandalf says:
"...for the Rammas is breached far and wide, and soon the host of Morgul will enter in at many points. And I came chiefly to say this. Soon there will be battle on the fields. A sortie must be made ready. Let it be of mounted men. In them lies our brief hope, for in one thing only is the enemy still poorly provided: he has few horsemen."
Then later:
"'The enemy,' men murmured. 'The dike is down. Here they come pouring through the breaches! And they carry torches, it seems. Where are our own folk?'"
And then:
"Now the main retreat was scarcely two furlongs distant. Out of the gloom behind a small company of horsemen galloped, all that was left of the rearguard. Once again they turned at bay, facing the oncoming lines of fire. Then suddenly there was a tumult of fierce cries. Horsemen of the enemy swept up. The lines of fire became flowing torrents, file upon file of Orcs bearing flames, and wild Southron men with red banners, shouting with harsh tongues, surging up, overtaking the retreat. And with a piercing cry out of the dim sky fell the winged shadows, the Nazgûl stooping to the kill."
The host of Morgul is joined by the Haradrim, they breach the Rammas, then we are told what the host consists of Horsemen and file upon file of Orcs, kind of like the description of the host that issued from Morgul in The Stairs of Cirith Ungol (rank upon rank of black figures led by cavalry).
The we have from The Black Gate Opens:
"But Gandalf and Aragorn rode with the vanguard to the entrance of Morgul Vale and looked on the evil city.
It was dark and lifeless; for the Orcs and lesser creatures of Mordor that had dwelt there had been destroyed in battle, and the Nazgûl were abroad. Yet the air of the valley was heavy with fear and enmity. Then they broke the evil bridge and set red flames in the noisome fields and departed."
Wow, Orcs in the host of Morgul.

Had you posted this earlier it would have saved some empty posting on both are parts. We are agreed now, the Legion of Morgul has Orcs in it, and was very aggressive prior to the charge of the Rohirrim. Now let's look at how they fare post-dawn:

New forces of the enemy were hastening up the road from the River; and from under the walls came the legions of Morgul; and from the southward fields came footmen of Harad with horsemen before them, and behind them rose the huge backs of the mûmakil with war-towers upon them.
...
And now the fighting waxed furious on the fields of the Pelennor; and the din of arms rose upon high, with the crying of men and the neighing of horses. Horns were blown and trumpets were braying, and the mûmakil were bellowing as they were goaded to war. Under the south walls of the City the footmen of Gondor now drove against the legions of Morgul that were still gathered there in strength.

The legions of Morgul come from under the wall. This does not speak of any particular prowess on their part. Later they are driven into by the footmen of Gondor- not necessarily routing, but not showing any prowess either. The matter stands- Men fighting for Mordor are described in several passages as regrouping and fighting reasonably well. The Orcs are not. The implication is that the sunlight has broken their fighting ability, else why the deference between men and orcs? No such difference exists between the men and orcs fighting for Isengard. This, along with the slow performance of Grishnakh's band and the numerous comments by characters that imply only hybrid orcs are sun tolerant, makes me think that Sauron's Orcs (who are non-hybrids) are not any more sun tolerant than any other Orcs who has been around since the first age. I am saying that Sauron's orcs are like other orcs in this respect. You are saying that they are different. It is up to you to come up with evidence that they are different. So far I have not seen anything compelling. The battle at Pelannor fields does not have the orcs behaving any different then they did at say, the Disaster of Gladden fields. All the descriptions of the Orcs at Pelannor during the day either have them routing, or being driven into. None of these descriptions are like the descriptions of the (sun-tolerant) Haradrim and Easterlings, who rally and fight. Where is the evidence that these Orcs were more sun tolerant than their First and Second Age counterparts?

[aragil]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
You are grasping at straws. This has nothing to do with the issue of 'sun tolerance'. There is nothing "forcing" you to put words in my mouth.

Thank you for again not answering my question. This has everything to do with sun-tolerance. I think that the reason the Isengarders appear to be 'stronger and hardier' than the Mordor orcs is because the Mordor Orcs are being adversely effected by the sun. The description of the Mordor Orcs lifting their heads and putting on speed after the sun goes down supports me in this. Your logic seems to be that the greater strength and hardiness of the Isengarders has nothing to do with sun-tolerance. I have several times extended this logic. This is not putting words in your mouth, this is taking the words from your mouth and seeing where it leads. If you would answer my question then I wouldn't even have to see where your logic leads- you would be telling me.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Mordor is plenty familiar? Try 'Hunt for the Ring', for example: "Now Sauron had never paid heed to the "Halflings," even if he had heard of them, and he did not yet know where their land lay. From Gollum, even under pain, he could not get any clear account, both because Gollum indeed had no certain knowledge himself, and because what be knew he falsified."
The Mouth of Sauron is not a lowely tracker or simple fighting orc.
As for what the Nazgul knew, try 'Hunt for the Ring'
Try 'Hunt for the Ring', for example:: "Gollum would not know the term "Hobbit," which was local and not a universal Westron word. He would probably not use "Halfling" since he was one himself, and Hobbits disliked the name. That is why the Black Riders seem to have had two main pieces of information only to go on: Shire and Baggins."

There is a big difference between Hunt for the Ring and the later events in Mordor. That difference is experience. Before the Hunt for the Ring Mordor knew nothing of the Shire. Afterwards, as the Mouth says, Mordor knows it well. The words of the soldier are post Hunt for the Ring. At this point Mordor knew the Shire well. Grishnakh had no problem recognizing halflings, the logical conclusion would be that the tracker and the Soldier wouldn't either.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
No there is not. They were upset with the whole situation. Not a specific 'term'.

They were upset with an unclear order from the Higher Ups. They don't seem to think any of the described culprits were particularly likely. Neither do I.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
You wrote: "The implication is that between 1942 and 1948 JRRT had no intention of using the word "Uruk" in any form to refer to soldier Orcs of Mordor."
The Lowdham Report is from that period and can not refer to Isengarders (who did not exist in the Second Age).

I was speaking in the context of the Black Speech term Uruk. Adunaic is a different language. Doubtless the two words spring from a common root in Quenya or Common Elvish, but they are not the same term. Whatever Tolkien had in mind for Adunaic has no effect on what he had in mind for the Black Speech, which is what we're discussing.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Which words did I put in your mouth?

Earlier post by Tar-Elenion
Of course you dont. That is because you cant.

Again there is no evidence to support your supposition. Your supposition is pure speculation.

There is evidence that earlier Isengard Uruk-hai had attacked servants of Sauron in order to steal away halflings. This is from the text. This is evidence.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Sam was believed to be a 'great Elf' because JRRT tells us that is what was seen. It was not a mistake to report it.
What "dwarvish characteristics" were attributed to Frodo? You should stop misconstruing the text.
It is not a mistake to call Frodo a "small sort of dwarf-man". That is an accurate description for someone who does not know what a hobbit or a halfling is (and would not even know those terms). It is not a mistake to report it.
The Uruk-hai involved were from Morgul and Ungol. That is what was seen and reported. No mistake.

It was a mistake to call Sam an great Elf. It doesn't matter whether he was believed to be an great Elf or not. That belief was in error. Frodo is given dwarvish characteristics in the term "a sort of dwarf-Man". The term "dwarf" is an adjective modifying "Man". This gives the "Man" dwarvish characteristics. Clear enough?
Some common Dwarven characteristics: Short, beard, stocky. Only short applies to Frodo, hence it would be easier to call him a "short-man", or a "half-sized man=halfling". Dwarf-man is inaccurate. That the Orcs of Ungol and Morgul were Uruk-hai is your assumption. It does not have much bearing on my argument.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
No, your 'probablies' are pure speculation and not based on the text. The text says what Sauron knew.
However, even if Sauron did know why would he go spreading it all over Mordor?

Ugluk told Grishnakh that he was a member of the fighting Uruk-hai, and that they were servants of Saruman. Ugluk killed troops loyal to Mordor in order to take the halflings to Isengard. None of this is speculation- it is fact based on the text. I speculated that this was pertinent information which Grishnakh would have communicated on. Gandalf agrees with me:

the Dark Lord knows that two hobbits were taken in the Emyn Muil and borne away towards Isengard against the will of his own servants

Obviously the Dark Lord knows that his own troops were opposed by Isengarders, else how would he know that they were going to Isengard. Ugluk says that the Isengarders are the fighting Uruk-hai, servants of Saruman. In all probability this is how Grishnakh would have described them. Feel free to post a reasonable alternative. I'd imagine that "against the will of his own servants" was a reference to his servants being killed by the Isengarders. This seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the text. Perhaps you could offer a different reasonable conclusion?
As far as what Sauron would want his underlings to know, it seems they all know too much. Grishnakh has personal knowledge of the Ring. Gorbag knows something 'has slipped'. The tracker tells the soldier to

‘Go to your filthy Shriekers, and may they freeze the flesh off you! If the enemy doesn’t get them first. They’ve done in Number One, I’ve heard, and I hope it’s true!’

I seriously doubt any of this is information that Sauron would want to be generally known to his troops. The fact is that they learn about this stuff, whether Sauron wills it or no.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
1). The text does not say that Shagrat knew none of Gorbag's boys got out.
2). The text does not say or imply that none of Gorbag's boys got out. It does say that none of Shagrat's got out.
3). The Nazgul who comes there does not know that none escaped with the prisoner.
4). I ignore your remote suggestion because you have _no_ evidence to back it up. You are engaging in pure speculation.

1) Shagrat seems plenty confident to go out of the tower, even though he is injured. He does not say that he thinks all of Gorbag's men are dead, nor does he say that he suspects some are still living. His actions, however, support the former.
2) HoME IX, p. 18

His first draft ('A') of the new chapter extended as far as the point where Sam, descending the path from the Cleft, sees the two orcs shot down as they ran from the gateway of the Tower

HoME IX, p. 23-24

Two archers right in the gateway - probably those who shot down the escaping orcs - lay pierced from behind with spears.

HoME IX, p. 24

He overhears the orc reporting to Shagrat. Shagrat is lying wounded by dead body of Gorbag. All Gorbag's men have been killed, but they have killed all Shagrat's but these two.

HoME IX, p. 24

Gorbag coveted the mithril coat, but pretended that they must search for the missing spy first. He sent his men to capture wall and gate, and demanded mithril coat.

Nothing in the published work contradicts this. Shagrat's men are still shot down by archers, but here we see that those archers were sent to guard the gates from any messenger being sent out. They were not covering a retreat by the remainder of Gorbag's lot. We even get an explicit statement "All Gorbag's men have been killed".
3) The Nazgul who came there does not appear to be the source of the rumor, as he never encountered a great Elf or a sort of dwarf-Man.
4) I provide evidence from the text which backs up my speculation. You choose to ignore it.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Treebeard is not making a statement he is asking a speculative question. Gamling speaks half-orcs and goblin-men bred by Saruman, he does not attribute either appellation to the Uruk-hai (you are the one doing that) who are directly called Orcs throughout. Legolas says it is unusual for Orcs to be out in the Sun and it is. How am I discounting anything they say?
JRRT never says Saruman's Uruk-hai are half-orcs. No character ever says that Saruman's Uruk-hai are half-orcs. Aragorn does call the 'goblin-faced men' half-orcs (you seem to give more credence to Gamling than Aragorn). Pippin mentions 'half-orcs and ruffians' in the Shire. These are not Saruman's Uruk-hai (who are dead). Saruman's Uruk-hai are called Orcs, Goblins, Uruk-hai and Uruks directly.

Treebeard makes a declarative statement:

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.

If you have any evidence to refute this, please provide it. Otherwise accept that it is Saruman's Orcs and not Sauron's which can endure the sun. Treebeard later speculates that Saruman has been crossing Orcs with Men. This is confirmed by Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring. If you have any evidence to refute Treebeard's supposition, please provide it.
Aragorn says that with dawn will come hope. Gamling says that Half-orcs, goblin-men, and wild-men will not be affected by the dawn. He seems to be describing all of Saruman's forces. You seem to think he is not describing the Uruk-hai, which means he is neglecting the majority of Saruman's forces. The Uruk-hai later claim that they care not for the dawn, indicating that they are the half-orcs which Gamling describes. This is entirely self consistent.
There is no evidence that the goblin-men consider themselves to be anything other than Uruk-hai. In which case Pippin's comments in the Shire could in fact be regarding Uruk-hai. Even Robert Foster, in his guide to Middle-earth recognizes that. If you can provide text refuting that, then please do so.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
Running with you back bowed is slow. Of course Orcs did so.

Really? I thought the way Orcs ran was quite fast.

From The Hobbit
"A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones," thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.

Running with your back bowed and your head up is uncomfortable at the least.
Why did the Isengarders run with their backs bowed?
Two reasons are given for the Morder Orcs not running as fast as the Isengarders: a 'plan' , or 'not being as quick and hardy'. Nothing is said about the sun.
Fact: JRRT said the Northerners were 'flagging in the sun', he did not say that of the Mordor Orcs.
Perhaps the Mordor Orcs had their heads down because the sun was in their eyes.

Isengarders are never mentioned with their heads down. Why would the sun not be in their eyes? Why would the Isengarders run with their heads up if it was so darned uncomfortable? Why would JRRT mention the sun going down if it has no effect on the Mordor lot?

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The "hosts of Mordor" are fleeing in terror from the Rohirrim. Not from the Sun. The "hosts of Mordor" include more than just orcs. They wail, flee and die because of the Rohirrim. Not because of the sun. You are picking and choosing.

The "hosts of Mordor" referred to here is never described as anything but Orcs. There is absolutely no reference to men. I am "picking" every single mention of Mordor troops there are here, and "choosing" to post them all. If I have missed one, please provide it. Otherwise accept the fact that I posted it all and there was no mention of men.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The Orcs are singled out later.
The Orcs are said to be fleeing from the Rohirrim "like herds before the hunters". They are not said to be fleeing from the sun.

The description of the Orcs is the only one given for the "hosts of Mordor". They are not "singled out". They are it. As far as I know, the only time Orcs are ever described as fleeing in terror of the sun is the first time it appears when Fingolfin marches into Beleriand. Otherwise Orcs will not flee in terror of it. They will, however, be adversely affected by it, and the will route where otherwise they might stand and fight- like the Haradrim and Easterlings who are at Pelannor. This description is entirely consistent with Sauron's Orcs being affected by the sun as they were in the first and second age. This is not what happens to Saruman's Orcs.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
The text does not say that the Orcs alone fled. It says the hosts of Mordor fled. The hosts of Mordor include more than Orcs. It _later_ (the next chapter and later in the battle) specifically singles out the orcs who flee from the Rohirrim, not the sun. But even if the text specifically said 'the orcs of the hosts of Mordor fled in terror', it would still be the Rohirrim they were fleeing from, not the sun. You are picking and choosing.

I "picked" every passage available. If you think that there is a passage which describes men among these "hosts of Mordor" then please provide it. Otherwise stop implying that I am stacking the dice- it's insulting.

Originally posted by Tar-Elenion
This is out of context. Try the prior paragragh:
"Horsemen, riding very swiftly, had indeed been sighted: still far behind, but gaining on the Orcs, gaining on them like a tide over the flats on folk straying in a quicksand."
This is why they put on speed.

If this is why they put on speed, why mention the sunset at all? Why not have the horsemen sighted and then the orcs immediately put on speed? What possible reason could there be for inserting the sun reference?

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
[B]Honestly, if I knew what you were looking for, and that you would agree with it, I'd post it. The text describes the forces seperating Imrahil from Eomer very explicitly. There is no mention of orcs. There is not even a mention of 'legion' or anything else vague that could be interpreted as orcs. There are Easterling, Southrons, Variags, and Far-haradrim. No possibility of Orcs. These are the forces that are sent to separate Eomer and Imrahil, a force which fights reasonably well. Later, elements of this force are mentioned as being driven Eastward by Imrahil. My interpretation is that they are driven along with orcs that had been routing from the outset. Since there is no mention of Orcs being sent to separate Eomer and Imrahil, I believe this is a good interpretation.

The reasonable explanation is that the Orcs who had been earlier driven away by the Rohirrim, toward the river, regrouped when the reserves were sent in from over the river and thus were part of the forces that cut off Imrahil from Eomer. That is why the orcs were there to be driven away by Imrahil along with the troll-men and Variags. If they had been routed by the sun, why would they return? The sun was shining the whole morning through. The fight lasted a long time. In any event Orcs were there as part of those forces that cut off Imrahil and were later driven away.

Your posting style is impolite, at best. If you think your continuous insults somehow enhance your contribution to these boards, then you are sadly mistaken. Facts like Orcs being described in the Morgul host are welcome contributions. Insults about my reasoning skills are not.

I am not insulting your reasoning skills. I think your arguments suggesting such things as the legions (foot) of Morgul consisted of only men because it does not say they were orcs there (even though it does not say they were men either) and when Gorbag and Co. is pointed out trying to suggest that they were the only Orcs at Morgul, are absurd (perhaps even intentionally?). You have many good arguments, some of which I even agree with. But I am finding such things deliberately provocative. I may be wrong on the deliberate part. But that is how I am beginning to see it.

We are agreed now, the Legion of Morgul has Orcs in it, and was very aggressive prior to the charge of the Rohirrim. Now let's look at how they fare post-dawn:
The legions of Morgul come from under the wall. This does not speak of any particular prowess on their part. Later they are driven into by the footmen of Gondor- not necessarily routing, but not showing any prowess either.

As the quote you posted said the fighting waxed furious. It also lasted a long time. The legions of Morgul did not flee the sun. Not even when driven against by the footmen of Gondor.

The matter stands- Men fighting for Mordor are described in several passages as regrouping and fighting reasonably well. The Orcs are not. The implication is that the sunlight has broken their fighting ability, else why the deference between men and orcs?

There is no such implication. The Orcs fled because they were taken by surprise. They did not flee the sun.
Do you think that if the sun had come out and they had not been attacked they would have fled?

No such difference exists between the men and orcs fighting for Isengard. This, along with the slow performance of Grishnakh's band and the numerous comments by characters that imply only hybrid orcs are sun tolerant, makes me think that Sauron's Orcs (who are non-hybrids) are not any more sun tolerant than any other Orcs who has been around since the first age. I am saying that Sauron's orcs are like other orcs in this respect. You are saying that they are different. It is up to you to come up with evidence that they are different. So far I have not seen anything compelling.

JRRT gives two reasons for the Mordor Orcs 'slowness' a 'plan', or 'being less quick and hardy'.
Neither of those says anything about the sun.
If the Mordor Soldier Orcs were just as effected by the sun as the Northerners then why were they not described as 'flagging in the sun'?
As a side note though we both think the Isengarders had some 'man' blood in them, it is not actually a proven assertion. Remember JRRT still treats it as a 'speculation' very late.

<snip of part addressed above>

[aragil]

I think we're going in circles here. You seem confident in your argument, I am certainly confident in mine. In the mean time much MB space is being used with out much progress, and it appears that anyone else who might have input in the matter is staying away from the thread. How about this: we have a poll- were Sauron's great Soldier-Orcs more sun-resistant than their predecessors? We could have three options:
1)Sauron's soldier Orcs were as sun-tolerant as Isengard's.
2)Sauron's soldier Orcs were less sun-tolerant than the Isengarders, but more sun-tolerant than their predecessors. (I assume your position)
3)Sauron's soldier Orcs were no more sun-tolerant than their predecessors. (My position)

We could each build our case privately and then submit them to a moderator, who would post them both in the poll-thread simultaneously. The two of us would not be allowed to post in the poll-thread until the voting on the poll closed- say a week or two. Then we each post a single summary (10000 characters) stating what we agree with and disagree with of the points that other posters make. We then both abide by the decision of that poll for any future discussions on this thread. This would save us a whole lot of wrangling and space-hogging on this thread. It might even bring in some fresh view points on the matter. What do you think?

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
There is a big difference between Hunt for the Ring and the later events in Mordor. That difference is experience. Before the Hunt for the Ring Mordor knew nothing of the Shire. Afterwards, as the Mouth says, Mordor knows it well. The words of the soldier are post Hunt for the Ring. At this point Mordor knew the Shire well. Grishnakh had no problem recognizing halflings, the logical conclusion would be that the tracker and the Soldier wouldn't either.

The 'experience' only lasted several days some six months before when four Black Riders entered the Shire. Not much time there. But even if Sauron (and the Mouth) did then know it well that hardly suggests everyone in Mordor knew it.
Grishnakh is obviously a special servant not a lowly soldier or tracker. Grishnakh knew about the significance of Gollum and the Ring. Did the tracker and soldier know? By "logical conclusion" shouldn't they? Shagrat and Gorbag did not either, and they were higher placed than the soldier and tracker. Shagrat and Gorbag did not even know what Frodo was.

They were upset with an unclear order from the Higher Ups. They don't seem to think any of the described culprits were particularly likely. Neither do I.

They were given their orders based on the information available.
None of that information suggests anything whatsoever about Isengarders.

I was speaking in the context of the Black Speech term Uruk. Adunaic is a different language. Doubtless the two words spring from a common root in Quenya or Common Elvish, but they are not the same term. Whatever Tolkien had in mind for Adunaic has no effect on what he had in mind for the Black Speech, which is what we're discussing.

That is not what you wrote: "The implication is that between 1942 and 1948 JRRT had no intention of using the word "Uruk" in any form to refer to soldier Orcs of Mordor."
They both mean Orc. JRRT used the term 'uruk' during the time period you note for other than Isengarders. This suggests that he knew what he wanted to use the term for, Orcs in general. I think JRRT knew exactly what he was doing, and he intended it to be a BS term for Orcs. But even if you are correct and he at first only intended it to be used for the Isengarders then where would they get it from?

There is evidence that earlier Isengard Uruk-hai had attacked servants of Sauron in order to steal away halflings. This is from the text. This is evidence.

Provide a quote saying they attacked servants of Sauron in order to steal away the halflings.

It was a mistake to call Sam an great Elf. It doesn't matter whether he was believed to be an great Elf or not. That belief was in error. Frodo is given dwarvish characteristics in the term "a sort of dwarf-Man". The term "dwarf" is an adjective modifying "Man". This gives the "Man" dwarvish characteristics. Clear enough?
Some common Dwarven characteristics: Short, beard, stocky. Only short applies to Frodo, hence it would be easier to call him a "short-man", or a "half-sized man=halfling". Dwarf-man is inaccurate.

Grasping at straws.
An Elf was 'seen'. There is nothing suggesting any Isengarders were seen or believed to be in the vicinity. The orders are related only to the events at Cirith Ungol. Nothing was there that could even be mistaken for Isengarders.
The phrase "a sort of small dwarf-man" then accurately depicts Frodo. Short like a dwarf (only smaller) and otherwise resembling a Man. JRRT chose to provide that description. Hence that description is accurate. What would have been "easier" in your opinion is not important.

Ugluk told Grishnakh that he was a member of the fighting Uruk-hai, and that they were servants of Saruman. Ugluk killed troops loyal to Mordor in order to take the halflings to Isengard. None of this is speculation- it is fact based on the text. I speculated that this was pertinent information which Grishnakh would have communicated on. Gandalf agrees with me:

the Dark Lord knows that two hobbits were taken in the Emyn Muil and borne away towards Isengard against the will of his own servants

Obviously the Dark Lord knows that his own troops were opposed by Isengarders, else how would he know that they were going to Isengard. Ugluk says that the Isengarders are the fighting Uruk-hai, servants of Saruman. In all probability this is how Grishnakh would have described them. Feel free to post a reasonable alternative. I'd imagine that "against the will of his own servants" was a reference to his servants being killed by the Isengarders. This seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the text. Perhaps you could offer a different reasonable conclusion?

Ugluk killed Northerners. They were operating under their own orders.
Anything other than what Gandalf says Sauron knows is speculation and without basis.
Grishnakh does not call Saruman's Orcs "fighting Uruk-hai". He calls them Isengarders: "Curse the Isengarders".
In all probability Grishnakh told the Nazgul something to the effect of: 'I ordered the Isengarders to bring the prisoners back to Lugburz with me. They refused, I need troops to get them to obey'. I'm sure he did so with appropriate "orc-talk" (use your imagination).

As far as what Sauron would want his underlings to know, it seems they all know too much. Grishnakh has personal knowledge of the Ring. Gorbag knows something 'has slipped'. The tracker tells the soldier to I seriously doubt any of this is information that Sauron would want to be generally known to his troops. The fact is that they learn about this stuff, whether Sauron wills it or no.

Grishnakh is obviously a special operative. The Witch King's demise was, well, rather public. On the otherhand "no news of the raid ever came back either to Mordor or Isengard".

1) Shagrat seems plenty confident to go out of the tower, even though he is injured. He does not say that he thinks all of Gorbag's men are dead, nor does he say that he suspects some are still living. His actions, however, support the former.
2) <snip quotes> Shagrat's men are still shot down by archers, but here we see that those archers were sent to guard the gates from any messenger being sent out. They were not covering a retreat by the remainder of Gorbag's lot. We even get an explicit statement "All Gorbag's men have been killed".
3) The Nazgul who came there does not appear to be the source of the rumor, as he never encountered a great Elf or a sort of dwarf-Man.
4) I provide evidence from the text which backs up my speculation. You choose to ignore it.

1) Shagrat has to go out to report what happened. In LotR it Shagrat is not told that all of Gorbag's men are dead.
2) We get no such statement in LotR. I wonder why not? Did JRRT change his mind? Did he decide that Shagrat would not know? Did he decide that Sam would not know?
3) The information could come from two different sources, Shagrat and the Nazgul.
4) The only real evidence you need to provide is evidence that it was believed that the Isengarders attacked Cirith Ungol.

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
[B]Treebeard makes a declarative statement: If you have any evidence to refute this, please provide it. Otherwise accept that it is Saruman's Orcs and not Sauron's which can endure the sun. Treebeard later speculates that Saruman has been crossing Orcs with Men. This is confirmed by Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring. If you have any evidence to refute Treebeard's supposition, please provide it.

The fact that Sauron's Orcs run in the sun with out 'flagging' like the Northerners is evidence enough. Sauron's Orcs do not even complain about the Sun. They endure it quite well. JRRT does not note any effect on them (unless it is causing them to lower their heads)

Aragorn says that with dawn will come hope. Gamling says that Half-orcs, goblin-men, and wild-men will not be affected by the dawn. He seems to be describing all of Saruman's forces. You seem to think he is not describing the Uruk-hai, which means he is neglecting the majority of Saruman's forces. The Uruk-hai later claim that they care not for the dawn, indicating that they are the half-orcs which Gamling describes. This is entirely self consistent.
There is no evidence that the goblin-men consider themselves to be anything other than Uruk-hai. In which case Pippin's comments in the Shire could in fact be regarding Uruk-hai. Even Robert Foster, in his guide to Middle-earth recognizes that. If you can provide text refuting that, then please do so.

The Uruk-hai of Isengard were all killed so they cannot be in the Shire. JRRT in the narrative voice always refers to the Uruk-hai of Isengard as Orcs and Goblins never as goblin-men or half-orcs. Aragorn does not call the Uruk-hai half-orcs, he does call the goblin-faced men half-orcs. The comparisons drawn between those like the 'Southerner' are to the goblin-faced men not the Uruk-hai.

Really? I thought the way Orcs ran was quite fast.

Yes, I think I previously mentioned that.

Isengarders are never mentioned with their heads down. Why would the sun not be in their eyes? Why would the Isengarders run with their heads up if it was so darned uncomfortable? Why would JRRT mention the sun going down if it has no effect on the Mordor lot?

Are the Mordor Orcs mentioned with their backs bowed?
When you bow your back it is natural for the head tilt forward. It would be a given.
He mentioned the sun going down because the sun was going down at that time. He does tend to be quite descriptive.

The "hosts of Mordor" referred to here is never described as anything but Orcs. There is absolutely no reference to men. I am "picking" every single mention of Mordor troops there are here, and "choosing" to post them all. If I have missed one, please provide it. Otherwise accept the fact that I posted it all and there was no mention of men.

The hosts of Mordor include all the troops. But lets just say you are correct and the hosts of Mordor include only Orcs. Then we know that the Orc legions of Morgul did not flee the sun. Why not?

Also:
"Now he looked to the River, and hope died in his heart, and the wind that he had blessed he now called accursed. But the hosts of Mordor were enheartened, and filled with a new lust and fury they came yelling to the onset."
Is this just speaking of Orcs (and just those of Mordor exclusive of the Morgul legions)? But the sun was shining, like it had been all morning. Why were only those Orcs enheartened, and filled with new lust and fury? Did no one else care?

[jallan]

Nóm posted on Sam's hearing the word Uruks:

if you don't mind a little side question from an observer - why wouldn't this be "orcs"?

From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter 144:

The name has the form orch (pl. yrch) in Sindarin and uruk in the Black Speech.

This equates them. However see the chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm":[quote]There are Orcs, very many of them,' he said. 'And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor.' Gandalf here distinguishes Uruks of Mordor as a particular kind of Orc. Assming that Gandalf's use here is normal (at least for those who knew something about Orcs and their kind), then Sam from listening to Gandalf and probably others speaking of such things, would also distinguish between Orc as a general term and Uruk as a particular kind of Orc.

From Appendix F:[quote]In Sindarin it was orch. Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of 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. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'.

From The War of the Jewels, (HoME 11): "Quendi and Sindar", Appendix C. Elvish names for the Orcs:

The word uruk that occurs in Black Speech, devised (it is said) by Sauron to serve as a lingua franca for his subjects, was probably borrowed by him for the Elvish tongues of earlier times. It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga.

The meaning here seems to be that uruk was the general word for orc, but in actual use normally only referred to the large soldier Orcs.

Of course, as I mentioned in my last post, any argument about what Sam would hear is probably bogus. Sam hears Nazgûl instead of 'Ringwraith'. Of course he knew both terms. But Sam is hardly likely to have known Lugbúrz which ought therefore to have been translated for him as the Dark Tower.

We might also imagine Sam picking up Lugbúrz with his ears and Dark Tower with his mind, associating the two, and so writing down Lugbúrz. We might ....

Linguistic arguments based on this passage are weak.

Aragil posted:

I respect Frodo's abilities as a writer and a linguist, therefore if he used two distinct terms here, then I believe it was because he was referring to distinct creatures.

Ouch!

From the chapter "Lothlórien":

Frodo could understand little of what was said, for the speech that the Silvan folk east of the mountains used among themselves was unlike that of the West. Legolas looked up and answered in the same language.

Tolkien later decided this was wrong, and blamed it on Frodo's linguistic ignorance. From Appendix F, footnote:

In Lórien at this period Sindarin was spoken, though with an 'accent', since most of its folk were of Silvan origin. This 'accent' and his own limited acquaintance with Sindarin misled Frodo (as is pointed out in The Thain's Book by a commentator of Gondor). All the Elvish words cited in I, ii, chs 6, 7, 8 are in fact Sindarin, and so are most of the names of places and persons. But Lórien, Caras Galadhon, Amroth, Nimrodel are probably of Silvan origin, adapted to Sindarin.

From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letters 205, footnote 2:

'A star shines on the hour of our meeting' (The Lord of the Rings, Book I, Chapter 3). The reading in the letter, omentielmo, is the same as in the first edition of the book, but Tolkien later changed it to omentielvo. The Elvish language Quenya makes a distinction in its dual inflexion, which turns on the number of persons involved; failure to understand this was, Tolkien remarked, 'a mistake generally made by mortals'. So in this case. Tolkien made a note that the Thain's Book of Minas Tirith', one of the supposed sources of The Lord of the Rings, had the reading omentielvo, but that Frodo's original (lost) manuscript probably had omentielmo; and that omentielvo is the correct form in the context. (The Ballantine paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings has the erroneous reading 'omentilmo'.)

Aragil, you can hardly at the same time claim that Tolkien changed concepts about Uruks and Uruk-hai during the writing of The Lord of the Rings yet claim that Frodo's linguistic understanding is perfect, especially when it is really Tolkien writing, not Frodo.

There are internal contradictions in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien made revisions in the second edition, but did not eliminate all of them.

Any argument that Tolkien must have done things perfectly, as you understand perfection, is invalid.

Tolkien sometimes changed his mind during the writing of The Lord of the Rings, and sometimes after it.

Tolkien, or Frodo if you prefer, also uses both Elves and Eldar, Orcs and Goblins.

But the evidence from Appendix F and Unfinished Tales, as well as the mention of Uruk-hai by the Mordor Orc all strongly indicate the identity of meaning of Uruks and Uruk-hai. in Tolkien's mind, and pending further evidence, I prefer to think he knew more than you do.

To disgregard this evidence is "special pleading".

Can you locate any other supposed error of any kind in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen", a narrative thick with proper names, geographical references, interlaced chronology, complex Appendices?

To claim that the Orcs of the Misty Mountains are Uruks is also special pleading. Of the Orcs whom the Fellowship meet in Moria one is described as:

... a huge orc-chieftain, almost man-high, ....

. If this chieftain is huge, yet still not the height of a man, then most were much smaller than Men, and therefore not Uruks, though that chieftain probably is one of the Uruks of Mordor that Gandalf spotted.

The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.

Have Mordor troops ever been attacked by Isengarders in order to steal away spies from the Rat land of the Shire? Actually, yes they have- just 20 days earlier, an event that is doubtless still on every Mordorian's mind.

This is absurd! How would "every Mordorian's mind" know of the existence of this single troop of Orcs among so many, or that anything bad had happened to it, or know anything about the Shire?

As to the sun-tolerance, it is irrelevant.

Yes, Saurman's Uruk-hai are better at resisting the Sun than most Orcs and are believed to have been in part interbred with Men, which probably explains this difference.

Obviously in such a situation there would likely be both kinds: Orcs with a little of the Man breed in them, and Men with a little of the Orc-breed in them, and all kinds of in-betweens.

Trying to distinguish Saruman's Uruk-hai from man-orcs is probably impossible, because such as Gamling, believing, probably rightly, the story that Saruman has cross-bred his Orcs with Men, will use "half-orcs and goblin-men" to describe the Uruk-hai in Saruman's host along with whatever beings that seem like Men that Saruman might have in his forces, other than the Dunlendings.

Trying to dig out exact percentages of human blood in Saruman's Uruk-hai or what percentage of Saruman's forces might have been pure Orc is futile.

Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have some ape Uruk-hai?

Aragil denies identity between Uruk-hai and Uruks, other than that both are Orcs, and insists that Uruk-hai have man-blood in them.

Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.

Saruman's Uruk-hai are noted in texts supplied by Aragil for greater ability to tolerate the Sun that that of other Orcs, , but how much greater than other types of Uruks and other types of Orcs it is vain to debate.

But the greater sun-tolerance of Saruman's Uruk-hai has no necessary connection at all as to whether Uruk-hai and Uruks are equivalent.

It is a different issue.

Orcs of different sizes are still Orcs. Uruks with different amounts of sun-tolerance may be equallly Uruks and equally Uruk-hai, or at least may call themselves so.

Some human ancestry need affect the way in which they use the term Uruk.

The maggots have better sight in the dark than Saruman's Uruk-hai, perhaps because the sun-tolerance of Saruman's Uruk-hai comes with a price.

Grishnákh and his followers do better in the sun than the northerners, or at least do not complain so much ... we don't know which. Tolkien doesn't tell us specifically, so again, nothing can be proved.

Should Grishnákh and his followers should even be counted strictly as Uruks? Possibly they are "sort of Uruks".

That there is tension in the narrative between the terms Uruk-hai and Uruks is reasonable enough if Tolkien first invented the term Uruk to refer to Saruman's solider Orcs, and then later extended it to also refer to the large Orcs of Mordor.

The result would be that Saruman's Uruks would seem to be (now incorrectly) reserving the name for themselves alone.

On the other hand, names are sometimes used differently in different contexts. Saruman's Uruk-hai have no reason to think about other Uruks, especially if short Grishnákh is not an Uruk, or not a full Uruk.

[Grond]

jallan,
what is the answer then? Are Uruks and Uruk-hai the same in your opinion or different. You give a lot of information but fail to make a stand on your fellings.

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by jallan
The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.
...
Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have some ape Uruk-hai?

Two passages noting the "long arms" of the Isengarders, and one passage likening them to apes:

'No hope of escape!' thought Pippin. 'But there is a hope that I have left some of my own marks unspoilt on the wet ground.' He groped with his two tied hands at his throat, and unclasped the brooch of his cloak. Just as long arms and hard claws seized him. he let it fall. 'There I suppose it will lie until the end of time,' he thought. 'I don't know why I did it. If the others have escaped, they've probably all gone with Frodo.'
TT, The Uruk-hai
...
Aragorn turned and sped up the stair; but as he ran he stumbled in his weariness. At once his enemies leapt forward. Up came the Orcs, yelling, with their long arms stretched out to seize him.
TT, Helm's Deep
...
Hundreds of long ladders were lifted up. Many were cast down in ruin, but many more replaced them, and Orcs sprang up them like apes in the dark forests of the South.
TT, Helm's Deep

I don't think the physical differences between Saruman's Uruks and Sauron's Uruks are extremely great, noticable certainly (and surely to other orcs), just not huge. Saruman's seem on average to be larger (though the 'huge orc-chieftain' in Moria seems more physically imposing) and to have straighter legs, the Mordor Uruks could have longer arms (or it could be a factor of them being shorter and bowlegged that makes their arms appear longer and more apelike, or a combination).

jallan wrote:
Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.

That is not intended to be my position (though I do admit it may seem like it, especially when I attempt to counter arguments that they are as fully effected by the sun as, say, the Northerners). I think the Uruks of Sauron were much less effected by the sun than the lesser breeds, though they may be a _little_ more effected than Saruman's Uruks.

Your post was excellent by the way.

[aragil]

Originally posted by jallan
From the chapter "Lothlórien":Tolkien later decided this was wrong, and blamed it on Frodo's linguistic ignorance. From Appendix F, footnote:From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letters 205, footnote 2:Aragil, you can hardly at the same time claim that Tolkien changed concepts about Uruks and Uruk-hai during the writing of The Lord of the Rings yet claim that Frodo's linguistic understanding is perfect, especially when it is really Tolkien writing, not Frodo.
There are internal contradictions in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien made revisions in the second edition, but did not eliminate all of them.
Any argument that Tolkien must have done things perfectly, as you understand perfection, is invalid.
Tolkien sometimes changed his mind during the writing of The Lord of the Rings, and sometimes after it.
Tolkien, or Frodo if you prefer, also uses both Elves and Eldar, Orcs and Goblins.

jallan- I think that you are under the wrong impression of what I am trying to do here. The whole point of this thread, back when it was started last year, was to see if from the text of Lord of the Rings the term Uruks seemed to describe creatures which were reasonably distinct from Uruk-hai. You could think of it as answering the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?" Please think of my posts in this light. The particular quatation of Gorbag's seems very similar to one of Ugluk's:

Ugluk's quote
'Very well,' said Uglúk. 'Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual.
...
Gorbag's quote
Something nearly slipped you say. I say, something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks.

This quote to me shows Uruks and Uruk-hai being used in a very similar context. Noticably, the Mordor Orc says "Uruks", the Isengard Orc says "Uruk-hai". We also have Gandalf and the narrator in The Land of Shadow say 'uruks' when referring to Mordor troops, while the Isengarders always refer to themselves as Uruk-hai. However, Tar-Elenion and ShagratU (who used to be very active on this thread) argued that Gorbag's statement was a special case owing to the translation effects of the Ring. I didn't really buy it, but in the interest of having some agreement on this thread (something which doesn't occur very often) I have since been arguing under this assumption. That Tolkien does things perfectly is not my argument!! It is a concilliatory gesture on my part- obviously it has not gotten me very far.

Originally posted by jallan
But the evidence from Appendix F and Unfinished Tales, as well as the mention of Uruk-hai by the Mordor Orc all strongly indicate the identity of meaning of Uruks and Uruk-hai. in Tolkien's mind, and pending further evidence, I prefer to think he knew more than you do.
To disgregard this evidence is "special pleading".
Can you locate any other supposed error of any kind in "The Battles of the Fords of Isen", a narrative thick with proper names, geographical references, interlaced chronology, complex Appendices?

(Grond- I think this pretty explicitly states jallan's feeling on the matter). First off, I am not overly fond of the term "special pleading". Second, I don't think I'm engaging in that activity. I have not ignored any appendix entry or statements by Mordor Orcs. I have largely neglected Unfinished Tales, because that was deliberately left out of the opening question of this thread (600+ posts ago). Again, think of this thread as attempting to answer the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?"
Having said that, I don't feel that the Appendix F mention equates the terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai'. The entry stems from the Black Speech word "Uruk", and states that this word is used to describe soldier-Orcs of Mordor and Isengard. This can be read two ways:
1) The soldier-orcs of these two lands can be referred to collectively with any term including 'uruk',
2) The soldier-orcs of these two lands can each be referred to with seperate terms, both of which include the word 'uruk'.

Originally posted by jallan
To claim that the Orcs of the Misty Mountains are Uruks is also special pleading. Of the Orcs whom the Fellowship meet in Moria one is described as: "snipped quote". If this chieftain is huge, yet still not the height of a man, then most were much smaller than Men, and therefore not Uruks, though that chieftain probably is one of the Uruks of Mordor that Gandalf spotted.
The common run of the Misty Mountain Orcs would seem to be of this smaller stock, called maggots by Saruman's Uruk-hai, while the Dark Tower Orcs are called apes.

I think you might have misunderstood part of my argument here. I certainly don't think the Northerners travelling with Uglúk were uruks(though perhaps the larger, bolder ones which stayed behind were), nor do I think that all of the Orcs in Moria were Uruks. I do think there were Uruks in the Misty Mountains- mainly because Gandalf identifies them in Moria. The huge chieftain seems like an excellent example, not only because of his size but also because he is described as 'swart' which matches the appendix entry for the uruks in the time of Denethor: "black orcs of great strength". There were also likely Uruks described in the Misty Mountains much earlier:

Azog's description from Appendix A:
Thereupon Azog came forth, and he was a great Orc with a huge iron-clad head, and yet agile and strong. With him came many like him, the fighters of his guard.

Bolg's description from the Hobbit:
There a host of Wargs came ravening and with them came the bodyguard of Bolg, goblins of huge size with scimitars of steel.

Note also the chronology of the Third Age:
TA 2475- first deployment of Uruks in Ithilien and Osgiliath
c.TA 2480- Orcs begin to make strongholds in the Misty Mountains, Sauron populates Moria with his creatures.
The proximity of these two dates makes me believe that Sauron used Uruks to help lead his colonization efforts in the mountains- The Great Goblin was also probably a Uruk.
I think the description from the Hobbit describes Uruks for several reasons. First, there is the mention of the Long Arms:

From the Hobbit
"A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones," thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the ores of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.
From the Lord of the Rings
In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Uglúk, standing facing Grishnákh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground.
...
Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran crouching, reached to the ground.

Shagrat we know is a Uruk. I suspect Grishnakh is a Uruk both because of this passage and because it makes sense to me that Sauron would only send his best soldiers to try and recover the Ring. In any case, the continued mention of arms reaching almost to the ground is sufficiently remarkable to me to make me think that we're dealing with the same variety of Orcs in all three cases. There is further collaboration from the earlier draft of the Moria episode:

From HoME VII
'There are goblins: very many of them,' he said. 'Evil they look and large: black Orcs.

This is making the same distinction as the passage from The Hobbit- goblins being the smaller variety, Orcs being larger. It is worth noting that this and the passage from the Hobbit were written in roughly the same era- before Tolkien used the term 'Uruks'. In a later re-write the 'black Orcs' in Moria became 'Uruks', I think it is reasonable to assume that if Tolkien had again re-written the passage from the Hobbit then they too would have become Uruks.
I think there is even more evidence from the opening of the chapter The Uruk-hai, although unfortunately I can't attest to this because Christopher Tolkien has given us virtually nothing of the original drafting of this chapter in the HoME series. He does say that the original drafting of this chapter in particular is very similar to the final form, so I think it is valid to regard the description of Ugluk, Grishnakh, and the northerners as being similar to the first draft. Worth noting is that here Ugluk and Grishnakh are described as orcs, the northerners are described as goblins. Something to keep in mind, anyway.
However, we even get an explicit statement of Uruks in the Misty Mountains:

From Appendix A, The House of Eorl
In 2989 Théodwyn married Éomund of Eastfold, the chief Marshal of the Mark. Her son Éomer was born in 2991, and her daughter Éowyn in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected.

This seems to be a pretty explicit statement that some of the orcs of the Misty Mountains were in fact Uruks.

[aragil]

Originally posted by jallan
This is absurd! How would "every Mordorian's mind" know of the existence of this single troop of Orcs among so many, or that anything bad had happened to it, or know anything about the Shire?

I think my language was confusing here. By every Mordorian I meant the "higher ups" responsible for giving the order to find the rebel Uruk-hai involved in the Cirith Ungol incident. Uglúk's band was remarkable, not just for their talented leader, but also because it was, to the best of my knowledge, the first time servants of Isengard had outright attacked creatures loyal to Sauron. Also, judging by Grishnkakh's words, it was the first time that Mordor units had encountered the White Badges of Saruman. Up to this point Saruman had been misleading Sauron's agents, etc. but he was probably considered to be nominally subservient to Sauron. Once Uglúk whacks off the heads of those Moria Orcs, Sauron would (IMO) consider Saruman to be an open rebel. I imagine some message would then be sent out to his captains that Saruman's servants were not to be trusted. If you believe that Uruks and Uruk-hai refer to different things, then the message might be that Saruman's Uruk-hai are not to be trusted.

Originally posted by jallan
As to the sun-tolerance, it is irrelevant.
Yes, Saurman's Uruk-hai are better at resisting the Sun than most Orcs and are believed to have been in part interbred with Men, which probably explains this difference.
Obviously in such a situation there would likely be both kinds: Orcs with a little of the Man breed in them, and Men with a little of the Orc-breed in them, and all kinds of in-betweens.
Trying to distinguish Saruman's Uruk-hai from man-orcs is probably impossible, because such as Gamling, believing, probably rightly, the story that Saruman has cross-bred his Orcs with Men, will use "half-orcs and goblin-men" to describe the Uruk-hai in Saruman's host along with whatever beings that seem like Men that Saruman might have in his forces, other than the Dunlendings.
Trying to dig out exact percentages of human blood in Saruman's Uruk-hai or what percentage of Saruman's forces might have been pure Orc is futile.

I don't think sun-tolerance is irrelevant. I'm trying to make a case that the term Uruk-hai refers to Isengarders, while the term Uruks refers to Mordor Orcs. If there were no difference between the two varieties of Orcs, there would be no reason for me to claim that they are referred to with different names. It is precisely because of the different characteristics of the Isengarders that this thread even exists. Chief among these characteristics is sun-tolerance. Both the soldier-Orcs of Mordor and Isengard are larger and stronger than the earlier breeds. The Isengarders have been mixed with some amount of men's blood, and have apparently become sun-tolerant. This is the basis for saying that Isengarders are different than Mordorians- any discussion about difference in naming (real or perceived) must stem from this difference in characteristics.
As for which term refers to which variety of hybrid- I absolutely agree with you 100%. I think there are two very broad 'varieties' of hybrid, ones that are more orcish, and ones that are more mannish. Personally I think that both varieties fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai", but that is just me. I said this many times in the deep past of this thread, but I'll admit that it may seem as if I was trying to be more precise in recent posts.

Originally posted by jallan
Saruman's Uruk-hai seem to lack the ape-like arms Tolkien gives to the Mordor Uruks and to Grishnákh and his followers, perhaps because partly man-bred. Or are the maggots are also short-armed? Does Saruman also have some ape Uruk-hai?
Aragil denies identity between Uruk-hai and Uruks, other than that both are Orcs, and insists that Uruk-hai have man-blood in them.

To Tar-Elenions description of long-armed Isengarders, I'll add the fact that Grishnakh calls Uglúk an Ape after Uglúk disparages the Nazgul.
In any case I don't think I deny identity between Saruman's soldier Orcs and those of Sauron. The vast majority of my posts are going to point out the differences- that's the nature of my position on this thread. However, I am happy to point out that there are very strong similarities. First off, Uglúk's troop is described as swarthy, just like the Uruk in Moria and just like the Uruks in the time of Denethor. This relationship actually runs even deeper than in the published text. The orc-chieftain who spears Frodo was extant (and clad in black) in the first full account of the chamber of Marzubul. The first conception of the capture of Merry and Pippin was that they were captured by "Black orcs of Misty Mountains" (HoME VII, p 346-347, note 18) who later bear them to Isengard. These of course later became a band of native Isengarders, but it is apparent to me that they were first thought of as being related to the earlier Chieftain. Remember, his band wasn't originally described as "black Uruks of Mordor", but as "Black Orcs" (unaffiliated). Also, there is my earlier quote about the "great uruks in the service of Saruman" who came down from the Misty Mountains in TA 2991-2995. From UT The Palantiri note 7 we learn that Saruman's 'possible' special breeding program could have started no earlier than TA 2990. To me this suggests that Saruman began with Uruks out of the Misty Mountains, and then crossed them with men in order to get his hybrid army. If this is the case then I would expect Saruman's troops to share more than a passing resemblance to Sauron's Uruks- I certainly wouldn't deny similarities between the two.

Originally posted by jallan
Tar-Elenion goes too far in my opinion in insisting that all Uruks must be alike, be equally unhindered by the sun.

I have never before agreed so heartily with a statement on this thread. He has said before that Saruman's troops might be more sun tolerant than Sauron's, however the way he has vehemently denied any quote which suggests this does seem a bit extreme.

Originally posted by jallan
Orcs of different sizes are still Orcs. Uruks with different amounts of sun-tolerance may be equallly Uruks and equally Uruk-hai, or at least may call themselves so.
Some human ancestry need not affect the way in which they use the term Uruk.

I agree that this is a possible reading. However, given the earlier strong identification from Helm's Deep that the Uruk-hai don't mind the sun, I prefer to think that these two are related. I agree that there are other readings, but I think mine is equally valid.

Originally posted by jallan
That there is tension in the narrative between the terms Uruk-hai and Uruks is reasonable enough if Tolkien first invented the term Uruk to refer to Saruman's solider Orcs, and then later extended it to also refer to the large Orcs of Mordor.
The result would be that Saruman's Uruks would seem to be (now incorrectly) reserving the name for themselves alone.
On the other hand, names are sometimes used differently in different contexts. Saruman's Uruk-hai have no reason to think about other Uruks, especially if short Grishnákh is not an Uruk, or not a full Uruk.

This is why Gorbag's quote becomes so important. It was added in revision, after Tolkien had decided to include uruks in the forces of Sauron. It is used in virtually an identical context to an earlier quote by Uglúk, as I suggested earlier. Nobody is arguing that Uruks and Uruk-hai are absolutely equivalent- Uruk-hai is pure Black Speech (pure bs!), while Uruks is an an anglicized Black Speech term. It is then puzzling that Gorbag would use the term "Uruks" while speaking in Black Speech/Orcish, while Ugluk and the Isengarders would continually use the term "Uruk-hai". For me the preferred solution to this is that "uruks" and "Uruk-hai" really are different terms which distinguish the soldier-orcs of Mordor from those of Isengard. I think that invoking the "translation" powers of the Ring is "special pleading", but I'm not going to insist that my interpretation is the only one out there.

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
The whole point of this thread, back when it was started last year, was to see if from the text of Lord of the Rings the term Uruks seemed to describe creatures which were reasonably distinct from Uruk-hai. You could think of it as answering the question "Does the use of Uruks in UT seem inconsistent with it's use in LotR?"

In other words are you asking does Fords of Isen seem inconsistant with LotR because Fords of Isen says...:

"Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruks, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles."

...instead of saying:

"Behind them came two battalions of the fierce Uruk-hai, heavily armed but trained to move at great speed for many miles."
??

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
I think there are two very broad 'varieties' of hybrid, ones that are more orcish, and ones that are more mannish. Personally I think that both varieties fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai", but that is just me. I said this many times in the deep past of this thread, but I'll admit that it may seem as if I was trying to be more precise in recent posts.

Clarify please.
By saying: "I think that both varieties [of hybrid] fall under the collective term "Uruk-hai...", do you mean that the 'goblin-faced men' spoken of by Merry, the Southerner from Bree, the Orc-men in Fords of Isen and the 'fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard' are all "Uruk-hai" ??

[jallan]

Grond posted:

jallan,
what is the answer then? Are Uruks and Uruk-hai the same in your opinion or different. You give a lot of information but fail to make a stand on your fellings.

I think from The Lord of the RIngs alone you cannot even prove that Uruk-hai is a plural form. It might be both singular and plural, just as Nazgûl is, and similarly for Olog-hai.

As Aragil documents, Tolkien used Uruk-hai long before he used Uruks or uruks or uruk.

It is often thought that the -hai element in Juruk-hai is a plural marker literally meaning smething like '-folk'.

If this is true, then Tolkien would hardly be aware of coining the workd Uruks. It would likely exist as the obvious Anglicized form, ready to use, as soon as the word Uruk-hai was created.

That the form Uruks exists, though Nazgûls does not, might suggest that Uruk in Black Speech was a singular form and there was a differing plural form.

Even that is not proved. The suffix -hai might be a race marker used in both singular and plural. There might be another optional way of indicating plural alone in Black Speech, without the -hai ending.

The main text of The Lord of the Rings provides no answers.

The "rebel Uruk-hai" mentioned by the soldier-Orc seems to refer to Gorbag and his crew. Can you prove it? Of course not.

The mention of a "great Elf" seems to echo the speculations of the Orcs when they find Frodo lying comatose. But can you prove it comes from those speculations through either Shagrat or one of the rebels who has been captured? No, for someone else may have theorized a "great Elf" independently.

Can you prove from The Lord of the Rings, including the Appendices, that the Elves, the "People of the Stars" are not aliens from another word?

The only use of the word Eldar in the main text of The Lord of the Rings is Gandalf's statement to Frodo:

And here in Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas.

Does Eldar apply specifically and only to a particular kind of Elf that comes from beyond the furthest seas.

"Furthest seas" cannot mean the sea which is so close to the west of the Shire, reputedly visible from the top of any of the three Elf towers just beyond the western border. It must mean the Pacific Ocean, which would contain the "furthest" seas from Rivendell.

So one would argue from this text alone.

Phrases and sentences may sometimes mean more or less than is apparent on the surface, or be interpreted differently than they would be with fuller knowledge.

Even in The Appendices, written a few years after completion of the text of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien had made changes in some underlying features of his world.

The language which Tolkien had formerly represented as descended from the language originally spoken by the exiled Noldor when they returned to Middle-earth now becomes Sindarin, awhich had begun to differ from the language spoken by the Noldor before the Noldor ever crossed into the West.

Almost certainly many of the details of the realms of Gondor and Arnor and Rohan were invented when he wrote the Appendices.

Did Tolkien only invent Elrond laying a task on Aragorn when he wrote it in Appendix A?

You can prove nothing one way or the other.

This is when Tolkien penned:

Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of 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. The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'.

Well, the only "great soldier-orcs' that issue from Isengard at this time, so far as we are told in the main text, are those who call themselves Uruk-hai.

That suggests that the Uruk-hai are Uruks, but does not prove it. Tolkien might be writing awkardly here.

This text does not indicate whether Uruk-hai is a normal Black Speech plural for Uruks or whether Uruk-hai identifies a particular kind of Uruk.

But this text suggests strongly to me that Tolkien thought the Isengard Uruk-hai were a kind of Uruk.

It says nothing about whether he thought at this time that Uruk-hai meant exactly the same as Uruks.

One of the scouting Orcs had been called {i]Snaga[/i] by Uglúk, and later an Orc named Snaga is promient in the story, being berated by Shagrat in the Tower of Cirith Ungol and eventually dying in a fall when frightened by Sam.

Now Tolkien explains that this duplicated name is not really a proper name at all, but a somewhat derogatory class title applied to the smaller Orcs?

Was this always Tolkien's thought? Or did Tolkien notice that he had used the same name twice, and, as he often did, come up with an explanation for something puzzling in the text?

A duplicated name is not the kind of error that needs explanation, but Tolkien might have enjoyed providing one in any case. Or snaga might indeed have meant 'slave' to Tolkien from its first use.

At least when he wrote this note, Tolkien thought that snaga was used in the speech of both Isengard and Mordor. If Tolkien had written "especially by the Uruks" we would probably understand him to mean both the Uruks of Mordor and the Uruk-hai of Saurman, for he has spoken of Uruks issuing from both Mordor and Isengard.

But he writes "Uruk-hai". Do we then understand that snaga was more used as a name for lesser Orcs by Saruman's Uruk-hai, perhaps because the Saruman's Uruk-hai were indeed more different from other Orcs, for example in their resistance to light? Or is Tolkien simply using a native term, [i]Uruk-hai[/i,] instead of the English Uruks?

You can't prove either.

But it seems to me likely from the Appendix note that Tolkien recognized all Uruk-hai as being Uruks.

Certainly it appears in letter 78 and in "The Battles of the Ford of Isen" that Uruks is used to cover Uruk-hai.

That "The Battles of the Ford of Isen" was not published in Tolkien's lifetime and was not completed is irrelevant. It, like many other such iincomplete writings, shows us what he was thinking at one time, and his thoughts, even late thoughts, should not be ignored.

The text, though not complete, is obviously very carefully composed and written as shown by the complexity of its subject matter. It is exactly the kind of text where any author would be trying to be extremely precise.

Why disparage it, when it agrees with what Tolkien wrote in Appendix F? Here also we see Uruks coming out of Isengard.

So Uruk-hai are Uruks.

But are all Uruks also Uruk-hai?

I feel that the Appendix F sentence reads better if we take Uruk-ha to mean simply Uruks.

I don't find it convincing that Tolkien wants us to imagine the Orcs so confused about what had happened in the Tower of Cirith Ungol that they blamed it on Saruman's Orcs.

I do not find it at all odd that, that Tolkien would use Uruk-hai and Uruks somewhat interchangeably if they were interchangeable.

The main evidence seems to me to be the outright statement in the index to Unfinished Tales under Uruks:

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

Neither "Uruk-hai" nor "Black Speech" are mentioned anywhere in Unfinished Tales, so this part of this entry is a very odd one for Chritopher Tolkien to invent.

CT claims that some of the material in the Index comes from his father's draft index to The Lord of the Rings, and this is exactly what would have fitted well there, and does not fit well in the index to UT.

Where else does Christopher Tolkien invent such things that he should not be trusted?

The worst he has been blamed for in linguistic matters is probable transcription errors in "The Etymologies" (part of which he makes clear were not very legible).

Certain non-linguistic inventions in the published Silmarillion were admitted in CT's own introduction, but have been mostly, perhaps completely, covered in the HoME series, and concern almost entirely the Fall of Doriath and minor corrections in the material.

What in the index to Unfinished Tales that can be shown to be in error from other writings or that CT would have any reason to want to change?

Because of ambiguity in the main text, Aragil can produce explanations mostly opposing what is found in other documents, but in fact no more likely to be true than what we find in the other documents.

What reason to distrust these other documents?

I see no problem with Tolkien inventing Uruk-hai, then deciding Sauron would have large Orcs of similar kind, but not, it seems, arising from breeding of Orcs and Men and not so easily able to bear sunlight.

Tolkien also began to use more often Common Speech Uruks instead of the Black Speech Uruk-hai.

Some of the tension between the accounts of Saruman's Uruk-hai Tolkien's later usage of Uruks would arise because Tolkien was not thinking of Sauron's Orcs much when first writing about the Uruk-hai.

A reader is a little suprised when the Mordor soldier Orc uses the phrase Uruk-hai, because the reader is only familiar with the term in respect to Saruman's Uruk-hai. Tolkien might not perceive this difficulty. Would he remember when and where exactly he had used Uruks and when and where he had used Uruk-hai, if to him they meant the same thing?

This is just as possible as Aragil's hypothesis.

It is equally unproveable.