13 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Is this where we can talk about the weird stuff in the movies? like that one ton of a troll not able to pierce the mithrilchain of frodo, while just the the mass of the troll would probably be enough to queeze and collaps frodos chest, since its a chain and not a mail?

Or where you as someoen who read the books may explain us why they not initially just used those rocs to simply fly to mordor?

[Kalimaster]

Mithril is also found in the D&D game. Hardness 15. Forgotten Realms makes extensive use of it.

[Lily from animove]

Marack Drock, on 20 February 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

Yep I can explain both for you.

Mithril- also called Silver Steel and white gold in the series is a substance only found in the Mines of Moria (If I remember correctly). The Substance is (as described in LoTR) as strong as Dragon Scales, and as light as a normal shirt. The substance also has certain magical qualities especially Frodo's as it was forged and assembled in Lonely Mountain and was first given to Bilbo by Thorin who spoke of its powers though in the Hobbit he does not name it. So upon attack it pretty much acts like Plate Armor changing its qualities and becomes as strong as Dragon's hide which as we all know is practically impenetrable.

As for the Eagles... this is one I have to explain many times. The Eagles had no allegiance to man. We know this from the book the Hobbit. The reason for them saving the Dwarves and Bilbo was because the Lord of the Eagles owed Gandalf a life debt after being pierced with arrows many years before. In LoTR Gandalf is saved by Gwaihir the Wind Lord who was informed by Radaghast of Gandalf's imprisonment. See Gwaihir, is a descendant of Thorondor who was a Maiar. The Maiar are the vassals of the Valar who are the 'Gods' of Middle Earth. The Maiar are only aligned to Manwe who sent them into Middle Earth as vassals. The Maiar are all the same species they just take different forms, if any. Gandalf, Radaghast, Saruman, The Blue Wizards, Sauron, The Balrogs, Ungoliant (Shelob's mother), etc are all Maiar.

Sauron, the Balrogs, and Ungoliant were all corrupted by Morgoth (who is Sauron's master). So the reason the Eagles would not help is because they did not answer to anyone but Manwe and their own kind. They would refuse to go to the aid of the men and Fellowship because Men, Elves, and Dwarves hunted a slew them in the elder days and so a rift has formed between them. They would not help Middle Earth again until the last battle in Mordor when even their fates were challenged. And so they rescued Frodo and Sam because they ended the reign of Sauron and in truth saved the Eagles as well as the entire world of men and Elves. So the reason they could not fly to Mordor was because the Eagles would never have helped them because they were estranged from Men and Elves.

so its magic that prevents the mtithril mail to be squeezed together while it naturally is just like a cloth, foldable?
that is somethinh LOTR did not tell us.


The eagle story then is quite interesting, thx for the info.

[RedDragon]

Marack Drock, on 20 February 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

The movie was incorrect. I do doubt that the Mithril would guard his organs from a mountain troll but as it never happens I wouldn't know, but the magic and strength properties of Mithril might have the effect necessary to defend him.

Basically, it's just Hollywood magic and plot armour, just like in the Hobbit movie, when Bilbo throws stones at the orcs, killing an orc with every single stone, but a moment later when one of the orcs comes running at him in full stride and crushes his head with the butt of his spear (which by all means should have killed a grown man), he only gets unconscious.

Marack Drock, on 20 February 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

D&D actually took... more than acceptable amounts from LoTR.

Well, seeing how Tolkien based most of his work on German and nordic legends (even copying names 1:1, see Durin or Dain for example), I don't see how it would be unethical to further use his work. After all, Tolkien basically revived the old mythical creatures like dwarfs and elves, building on a foundation that was laid by writers centuries ago, and modern writers and game designers carry on with this tradition. I guess Tolkien would be honored to see how much influence he had on modern culture with his adaptation of that historic material.

[Void Angel]

I have to disagree a bit on the Eagles; the Eagles were indeed servants of Manwe - but they were also created to keep watch on Sauron, and his master Morgoth before him. The reason no one asked them to fly the Ring to Mount Doom is the same reason they sent in the Hobbits where Elf lords feared to tread: the only hope they had of defeating Sauron lay in infiltrating Mordor and destroying it before Sauron realized the danger. That was the whole point of the Battle of the Morannon, as well. Sauron had discovered by that point that the Ring had been found, and assumed that one of those who could effectively claim its power (Gandalf, Aragorn, etc) would seek claim it and win the war. "He is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream." So the armies of Gondor and Rohan marched to confront Sauron's overwhelming military superiority specifically to draw out Sauron's reserves, emptying the Black Land (Mordor) and directing his attention toward what Sauron would perceive as the overconfidence of a newly risen Ringlord - someone who had not yet mastered the powers of the Ring, so that Sauron could still wrest it from them. The Eagles did not merely rescue Sam and Frodo, but also provided air support, attacking the fell beasts of the Ringwraiths in support of the Gondorian army and the host of the Rohirrim.

Similarly, it is a mistake to be too... mechanistic, in examining the magic of Tolkien's world. Consider the elven cloaks given to the Hobbits by Galadriel and Celeborn. Those cloaks blended into a huge array of environments, making the wearer nearly invisible when still; they were all but impervious to the elements, and kept the wearer warm in all but the harshest environments, although very thin and light. Their properties were so impressive that the Hobbits immediately asked if they were magical - and the elves didn't know what to say. The elves told the Hobbits that if they meant that some sorcery, as by a storybook magician, had been cast on the cloaks, the answer was no; "but we put the love of all we know into all we make." Next to Tolkien, Dungeons and Dragons has had an extensive effect on fantasy, however - so we tend to make up mechanistic explanations for the things we see. It's an unavoidable artifact of a roleplaying system concerned very much with combat (D&D developed from a player mod of Chainmail, after all,) but it runs counter to Tolkien's world.

Tolkien did much more than adapt Germanic, Nordic, and even Greek mythology into a fictional world - he made that world real. The magic runs deep to the bone in Middle Earth, but most people just go about their daily lives; where previous fairy stories and even mythology had focused on magic, and enchantments, and the doings of demigods and heroes, Tolkien shows us a world very much like our own. Magic in Middle Earth is more often implied than implicit - the demigods vandalize your door and volunteer you for an "adventure;" heroes of legend show up and guide you through the wilderness; Elves and Dwarves and Goblins line the path, but they're just people. You only see through glimpses that Gandalf might indeed be uncloaked; or that the capable, middle-aged Ranger will live longer than any other Man you meet, and commands powers to rival the great kings of a lost age. Tolkien's magical artifacts are often the same way; you're told they're magical, but their magic not described, not explained. The Ring grows heavy in opposition to its wielder as it nears the path to Orodruin; the ancient Numenorian blades you mostly forgot the Halflings were carrying are enchanted with against the powers of even the Lord of the Nazgul; and the elves put the love of all they know into all they make. You'll never hear a description by Tolkien to the effect of, "well, the mithril changes its properties to be more like plate mail, and..."

Of course, it's already been discussed that in the books Frodo was attacked by an orc chieftain ("huge, almost man-high,") rather than a troll. But if I start on Peter Jackson and the Works of Shame, I'll be here all night. =)

[Void Angel]

PS: Tolkien was very clear that while of course his experiences in the Great War, and World War II, informed the development of the Lord of the Rings, the books were in no way representative of either war. As for his independence from the works of mythology, it must be remembered that he was a professor of anglo-saxon and English literature. He was well-read, and the influences of various mythologies on his characters cannot be denied; remember, he was drawing inspiration from several different sources - comparisons to the scale of "other mythologies" may not be valid.

Also! For your viewing pleasure! This Poem, should be sung to This Tune

[RedDragon]

Marack Drock, on 20 February 2015 - 06:57 PM, said:

I don't think it is really fair to say something was copied unless it was blatantly so. Names like Thorin and Durin he may have found but saying they were based off mythological people is debatable because those were also common names at the time and Tolkien wanted mystic sounding names. But copying things like Hobbits for a board game and copying them practically perfectly is just not acceptable. Elves and Dwarves are commonly used in almost all folklore in almost every region of the world, there is no single origin and there is no reason someone can't use them, because its something we can all relate to. Balrogs, Ents, Hobbits, etc these are someone's personal creations that are not used in any other form or literary work nor should they be allowed to be. No single person can claim Elves and Dwarves are their's but Hobbits and Balrogs yes. Those are Tolkien's and his alone.

I think you are being a bit over-defensive when it comes to Tolkien. This is understandable regarding the investment you have in his works, but one has to be realistic about certain things such as inspiration and sources. Very few (one may argue none at all) creative ideas just come out of nowhere, and so almost everything we "invent" is based on something we experienced during our lifetime. And Tolkien borrowed really heavily from old sources and also from sources not so old, as is demonstrated by the "invention" of the Hobbits, which are (as Tolkien admitted himself) influenced by stories from other authors. I definitely remember Edward Smith's "Land of the Snergs" being named by him as influence and maybe some others too.
As for other examples, the Dwarves are basically a 1:1 copy of the mythological creatures mentioned in Middle-German (and English I guess, but I am not too firm with that) folklore.
And regarding the names: Since Tolkien worked as a (medieval) philologist, I find it highly unlikely that names like Dvalin or Durin, Dwarves mentioned in the Edda (which Tolkien was no doubt very familiar with) would be used "by accident" by him.

[Vassago Rain]

I first read the lord of the rings when I was 7 years old. That was 23 years ago.

[RedDragon]

I am in a bit of a hurry right now, not enough time to fully read your response, I will do that later. After browsing through your text I can say one thing right now: You really should be cautious with all those "historical" facts you are throwing out there. Your brother, as cool a guy he may be, does not qualify as a trustworthy source. Saying that "Thor was based on Jesus directly actually" is quite ridiculous and in no way scientifically supportable. Maybe he was confused by the fact that most (conserved) written records stem from the time of christianization, thus being written by Christian clerks and being influenced by their views. But that Thor was based on Jesus? I studied both German philology and history and quite frankly I have never heard such a claim in any scientific context.

Also

Quote

Also not middle German. Germany and England (or Britania) were both part of the Holy Roman Empire where these myths would have gotten a person burned. It was for this reason the Vikings even raided and pillaged the Empire the way they did (because Charlemagne tried to enforce Christianity on them). Norse mythology itself was inspired by many different elements and lore. Its Germanic yes, but not Middle German. Properly it is Scandinavian.

This is a collection of historic tidbits and hearsay, and quite far from the truth. There is an extensive tradition of Middle German texts (so called "Heldenlieder" ) that are based on Germanic an Nordic mythology and were widely received during the middle ages (albeit yes, the texts were put into Christian context over time). Examples are the "Nibelungenlied" and the "Thidreksaga", both which are based on far older traditions that are also shared with the Edda and other Nordic myths.
Especially the Thidreksaga (mainly the "aventiurehafte" part, literally the "adventurous" as opposed to the historic part) reminds a lot of Tolkien's work, and as a philologist he certainly knew the texts quite well. I would be surprised if he hadn't based his dwarfs on stories like "Laurin" for example.
And Britain being part of the Holy Roman Empire? I'd really like a source on this, my colleagues at the Chair for History at the University would be really flabbergasted if I could present them proof of something like that

Long story short - I am impressed by the amount of motivation you have for all this stuff, but your knowledge seems to be based mainly on hearsay and you are confusing some basic historical facts. I highly recommend reading actual scientific books about the matter. Especially when it comes to medieval studies, there are really interesting reads, not only for Tolkien fans. Please don't take this as an condescending insult - as I already said, I'm impressed by the energy you put into this, especially since you are only 18 (if I remember correctly from that other thread). I really could imagine you studying history for example if you are so interested in this stuff. But a word of advice: Don't persist on the things you think you know if you can't actually back them up by hard scientific facts and sources. That irritated me from the beginning while reading your texts - you always state "Tolkien is..." and " Tolkien said..." without reciting any sources, so we basically have to take your word for it.

Same goes for example for

Quote

Tolkien himself never admitted to any influences but old Norse.

when a simple search on Wikipedia results in:

Quote

Tolkien wrote to W. H. Auden that The Marvellous Land of Snergs "was probably an unconscious source-book for the Hobbits"^[5] and he told an interviewer that the word hobbit "might have been associated with Sinclair Lewis's Babbitt"

That being taken from "The Annotated Hobbit: The Hobbit, or, There and Back Again." by Douglas Anderson.

[Void Angel]

Marack Drock, on 20 February 2015 - 06:57 PM, said:

Not completely true. Gwaihir and Thorondor were both Maiar. The Maiar are the same as the Valar but the Valar were the chosen ones of Illuvatar. In the Silmarillion he does say that the Maiar were Ainu that were not counted among the Valar. Now yes the Eagles themselves were made to defend against Morgoth but really, they never once did make much or any attempt to really save man or the Elves unless they themselves were threatened. Also you must remember no one can use the ring. Elrond, Gandalf, and Glorfindel both say that. The ONLY person to wear the ring without effect was Tom Bombadil (and my theories on him go into crazy speculation as he states he walked Arda before it was shaped so..... my guess he might be Illuvatar in Human form). Remember the ring has a will and soul of its own practically and is tied to Sauron. No, one can wield its true powers. They can resist it for a time (like Bilbo) but eventually.... it always wins. Gandalf refused to take it because he knew he would succumb to it. The Ring is bound to Sauron and no one can wield it. Only resist it. This is specifically stated in LoTR and in the Silmarillion (At the end when he talks of the Rings of power).

The Ring is an inherently evil artifact which will warp and corrupt the intentions of its wielder - but it can be wielded quite well by those with the strength to use it. This is why Sauron spends so much time desperately hunting the Ring, even setting his best servants on its trail - despite being totally secure militarily (remember, the force which nearly broke Gondor was just a fraction of his power) and unassailable metaphysically (Gandalf, after his rebirth as The White, specifically describes himself as the most dangerous thing in Middle Earth - except Sauron.) Even the final gambit in the Lord of the Rings relies on Sauron's assumption that Gondor's foolhardy advance is the "arrogance of a new Ringlord" - a deception which would be impossible if the Ring were unresponsive to any hand but Sauron's own.

While Tolkien speculated (as was his wont; he regarded his writings about middle earth to be a "manufactured history," and was very concerned with the internal consistency of the material) that the Great Eagles might be maiar, I do not believe this is actually stated in any of his completed works. Regardless, the Great Eagles were not made to defend against Morgoth, per se, but rather to spy on him and keep watch over the Noldor. Great Eagles often aided Elves and Men who were actively resisting Morgoth and Sauron, even at risk to themselves. The Great Eagles fought in the War of Wrath; Thorondor scarred Morgoth's face in the process of rescuing Fingolfin's corpse, and later, with Fingon, rescued Maedhros from his torment on one of the Thangorodrim. However, it was in their role as spies and sentinels that the Great Eagles most often aided the Free Peoples of Middle Earth, as they were instrumental in preventing the discovery of Gondolin during the Second Age until Maeglin's treachery. Similarly, they rescued Thorin's Company and later assisted in the Battle of the Five Armies, even though they were not themselves threatened in either case.

Marack Drock, on 20 February 2015 - 06:57 PM, said:

True he never explicitly says it. But it is implied. The way the armor acts in general it is obviously magical and its properties obviously that like plate mail. Otherwise there would be no way Frodo would survive the Orc Chieften throwing that spear. Most spears like that thrown at that speed could go through a man even if wearing plate armor (as seen in medieval times). Its properties are obviously magical beyond that of any normal armor and it obviously changed. I should have been clear that it was implied instead of explicitly told.

I agree I was being way to Mechanistic of the Magic. It really is to complicated to truly explain but, that is the only way I could think of to explain Mithril as it is implied in several sources that it is magical and logically to protect against all this it had to use that magic to change in some way. But the world of Tolkien is so complicated especially in magic I don't think I should have said that the way I did. Thank you for correcting me.

Dungeons and Dragon's magical system is also literarily inspired - by the works of Jack Vance, particularly in his Dying Earth setting. Vance's wizards are limited in their practice of magic by the difficulty of remembering their spells, whose magical incantations are, er, magically difficult to recall. Thus, many wizards use wondrously enchanted items to supplement their spellcasting ability. Dungeons and Dragons, being at its core a combat game with integrated role-playing elements, applied this general system of magic to a setting greatly inspired by The Lord of the Rings - planting the seeds of confusion for many when they read Tolkien's work.

The way his mithril shirt acts on the one (or two; I might remember it being "used" in Mordor, but I recently re-read that book and I'm not sure where I put it) times we see it used is exactly like really good chainmail. The spear hits off-center on the right side, deflects off the armor, and pins Frodo to the wall. He still gets the breath knocked out of him, and when his wound is later examined he has bruising and abrasions on his left side (where he was pinned against the wall) and major bruising and mild contusions on his right side, where the spear hit and pushed some of the links through the undercoat and into Frodo's flesh. It's effectively the same kind of injury as you'd get from a modern ballistic fabric and a gunshot wound (edged weapons will be only slightly impeded by kevlar fabric, but I digress.)

As far as allegorical themes in Tolkien, by his own declaration there are none. He suggests that we might confuse applicability with allegory, but states emphatically that allegory relies on the purposed determination of the writer - and by this definition there can be no allegory in any of the works of Tolkien, even by accident.

Concerning intent and influences of the story, Tolkien's primary motive for writing the book was "the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them." He further said that, an author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate or ambiguous." So while his experiences during two wars, and his scholarly familiarity with various mythologies, certainly shaped and influenced various parts of the narrative, care should be taken not to read too much into the work - Tolkien's apparent intention to construct a mythology for England applies to the Silmarillion, not the Lord of the Rings, as nearly as I can tell, though I have not read Carpenter's Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, which is the source usually cited. It's possible that Tolkien's intent transformed as he worked on the books of the Silmarillion, since the work went unfinished until after his death.

Edited by Void Angel, 21 February 2015 - 02:52 PM.

[Void Angel]

Oh good lord - I had to skim over your megapost three times just to find where you replied to me - giant photographs and diatribes about your qualifications do not enhance your ethos.

Concerning the Eagles, while one might quibble over the precise definition of "frequently," as applied to a literary piece, the fact remains that not everything the Eagles did was done because they were threatened, and cannot be adequately explained by their being "simply vassals of Manwe." Their aid of the elven princes in particular - who were kinslayers and exiles, at odds with the Valar - speaks volumes in this regard. While certainly reclusive when Morgoth and Sauron were not around, and having their own agenda with no general allegiance to the Free Folk of Middle Earth, the Eagles did intervene on behalf of various parties throughout the tales - and remember, the historical portions of Tolkien's works are arranged as historical epics, not modern novels. The fact that we see the Eagles only the parts where Sauron and Morgoth are abroad may tell us about their motives - but I think it precipitous to assume that silence indicates they did nothing. The Silmarillion is concerned with the history of Elves, not of Eagles.

As for Thorondor and Gwaihir, while my collection of primary sources is incomplete, my research of secondary sources only turns up that Tolkien, when revisiting the collection of books that would become the Silmarillion, speculated that they might be maiar, since Tolkien "did not think" that Eru would have given the breath of sentience to an animal. Such language - viewed, as it must be, in the light of Tolkien's insistence on speaking of his creation of Middle Earth as the process of describing a pre-existing world - cannot be considered an authoritative declaration; rather, it seems Tolkien had not decided, or intended to leave their true natures undeclared.

The gambit at the Morannon worked because Sauron knew that someone had the Ring, having mistaken Pippin for the Ringbearer, However, it is almost certain that Sauron realized Pippin had nothing close to the will to master the Ring - remember that Galadriel told Frodo that the Ring granted power according to the measure of its bearer, and that he (Frodo) would have to become much stronger (and bend his will to dominating others) before he could access its true powers himself. Having glimpsed Pippin's mind in the Stone of Orthanc, Sauron certainly knew that the Hobbit was unable to become the Ringlord, but Pippin was not the only one who showed himself to Sauron in the Stone. Knowing the measure (though not the identity) of Aragorn, as well as the powers of Denethor, being aware of Gandalf and the rest of the Wizards, and finally, not being able to penetrate the mental defenses of Galadriel and Nenya, Sauron saw, in the sudden march of Gondor, the arrogance of a new Ringlord - just as he was meant to.

Remember, the Wise are all aware to some extent of each other's power and thought - Sauron's strength is very great, and combined with the palantir he has tremendous powers of metaphysical perception. When people put on the Ring, he does indeed see them, possibly because they are shifted into the realm of spirit, or because he is linked to the Ring, or because they are wielding a power greater than any other in Middle Earth, whether or not they can master it. And master it some can. Gandalf refuses because he knows that the Ring would corrupt him, not that he would be unable to wield its might; Galadriel refuses for the same reason, and Sauron himself is terrified, after the Battle of Minas Tirith, that the mysterious captain of Gondor who revealed himself in the Stone of Orthanc will claim the Ring - and thus gain the might to overcome both Sauron and his truly massive army. Gandalf thinks the Ring can be used; Elrond thinks the Ring can be used; Galadriel thinks the Ring can be used; even Sauron thinks the Ring can be used by others - I think we have to believe him.

It's true that the Ring has a will of its own, or possibly it shares the will of its master, but will alone does not allow it any great agency. It betrays Isildur when the moment comes, but ends up getting washed away in the river. It slips off Gollum's finger in order to find its rising master - but it's found, not by any of the orcs who swarm beneath the mountain, but by a Hobbit who chances by - and then proceeds to resist the Ring for decades (granted, Sauron's setback in Mirkwood would affect the Ring, but anyone who knows what the Ring is who learns Bilbo has been carting it around is impressed or surprised that he could do so.) Gandalf himself doesn't think Bilbo found the Ring by happenstance; he rather suspects that will was involved in the matter - and not the Enemy's. The Nazgul seem able to sense its general presence in a vague way - but on several occasions they walk (ride, fly) right past it. Don't forget, several people resist the temptation of the Ring - the most notable is Faramir, in direct contrast to his brother. Far from wanting to be in Mordor and Orodruin, the Ring fights Frodo at every step, becoming heavier and heavier the closer it got to the Black Land. It's true that Frodo succumbs at the end - but he almost doesn't. There is no reason in the story to assign omnipotence to the Ring. Every expert consulted in the storyline concludes that the Ring's power over its Bearer is vast, but not omnipotent - and Sauron himself agrees with them.

Edited by Void Angel, 21 February 2015 - 09:35 PM.

[Rogue Jedi]

Marack Drock, on 21 February 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

Also not middle German. Germany and England (or Britania) were both part of the Holy Roman Empire where these myths would have gotten a person burned.

None of current day Britain was part of the Holy Roman Empire, did you mean the Roman Empire (27BC-476AD) rather than the Holy Roman Empire (962AD-1806AD). Parts of Britannia were part of the Roman Empire however Roman Britain stopped at Hadrian's Wall (the border to Scotland).

[RedDragon]

First of all: Marack, relax a bit We are just having a friendly exchange of views here
You don't have to defend yourself and no one here wants to ridicule you or belittle you because of your age. As I already said, I really appreciate that you are that much interested in those things at that age. Sadly not many kids/young men today value knowledge that high.
But: It's not the amount of books you own that makes you a good historian. It's not even what kind of books those are or what stands in them. It's how you deal with the information. Sadly today it is quite common that people read a book e.g. about the Krim crisis and proclaim to be experts on the topic from that point on. That's not how science works.

Marack Drock, on 22 February 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

So that means that no matter what no one can take me, even with my qualifications so... there is just no point ever debating anything because now You and Red Dragon are just dismissing me because I am 18. So in short this thread is just a waste of time. Thank you for letting me know.

The fact that you are relatively young has nothing to do with how much you know or don't. The point is that you had not yet the opportunity to get schooled in scientific research. Which is no crime and does not make you incredible or unable to discuss topics, but your attitude makes it quite hard to argument with you because you obviously insist on the things you learned from various sources without questioning their credibility.
I myself am far from an expert in any but my chosen research field (which doesn't directly touch the matter discussed here), but I spend 5 years at then university doing nothing else than studying history and am now close to promotion in medieval history, so I think I know a bit about the topic. And now try to put yourself in my place - there's this 18 year old guy who has read some history books (some of them popular science, not one directly relevant to the topic discussed here) and tells me I am flat out wrong on the things I not only studied for years under the leading scientists in that field, but which also were my main topics during that time - I hope you can understand why I am interested in setting the things straight
You can't be expert on every topic. I for myself have basically no idea about Tolkien's work except that I read LotR, the Hobbit and parts of the Silmarillon. But regarding the back story I am sure that you know a lot more about it than me and I wouldn't argue with you over it without good reason.

But when you claim things as England having been part of the HRE, I just have to tell you that you are flat out wrong. And no, it wasn't even "a semi part of the Holy Roman Empire". England has always been a sovereign state (except the episodes with France and the Normans, but that is another story), more so than any other in the old world. Not even the Habsburgers could gain much influence on the isles. And you mentioned Karl V. - yes, his son Philipp had been married to Maria of England, but even then the marriage was only allowed by signing a treaty that basically forbade any claims on the English crown and in effect only strengthened the English sovereignty,
Yes, England and the Empire had commercial (and sometimes dynastic relations) but not more than other states in the old world - by that logic, every state would have been part of the Empire during some time.

Another point: Charlemagne did not drive christianization of Denmark. Quite the contrary, he cut down on proselytization because he followed a policy of "unity of realm and religion", thus allowing proselytization only in conquered territory (ergo the conversion of the Saxons). Proselytization in earnest began under Ludwig I. and was on its highest point at about 1000. The legends of Thor are older, waayyy older than that, reaching back to indogermanic times. Even Tacitus mentions the German faith in his "Germania". Saying that "Thor is based on Jesus" is an indefensible claim and I'd really like to get some sources on this, if you are so convinced of it. Maybe you could say the christianization of Scandinavia left some traces of Christianity on the pagan faith, but anything more is highly questionable in my opinion.

Also on a side-note: The Holy Roman Empire did by no means "control Europe". Quite the contrary, following the downfall of the Frankish Kingdom, the Empire used to be a highly unstable union of smaller states. An Emperor counted as successful if he managed to preserve the realm's integrity, not to dream of expanding its borders. Many German Kings couldn't even achieve coronation because of feuds and other squabbles with the "great" of the realm or with the church. If you want to read up on the hitory of the Empire, I suggest Stefan Weinfurter's "Das Reich im Mittelalter". It's a good first read on the topic and Weinfurter is one of the leading historians when it comes to the Empire.

All in all you mix up many historical facts in your attempt to support your claims. Again, it's not what you know or don't know but your approach on the topic. Generalized claims like "England was part of the Empire" or "Jesus is based on Thor" are indefensible as such. If you want to make such claims, they should be concretized and backed up by facts.

Regarding Wikipedia: It's by no means the untrustworthy thing you claim it to be. Yes, school teaches that you should not quote Wiki. That is true and right, but it comes from the fact that earlier generations used to get all their infos directly from Wiki via copy+paste. Wikipedia is exactly as any other source: You have to know how to use it. When facts there are backed up by correctly cited sources, then it is no problem. That is why I did not quote without citing the source. In my case it was a quote, presumably directly from Tolkien, that you can read in the Annotated Hobbit.
By the way, Wikipedia has some of the strictest quality standards on the web. So no, you won't find things like "Dragons are real" there, at least not for long. They harshly penalyze people who alter the entries without good reasons, as was shown when they excluded the whole German Bundestag from editing sites by blokcing their IP range, because some politicians tried to "improve" their personal pages.
Most articles on Wikipedia are based on current publications, and yes, even for scientific research it is a well known and used place to go for early research if you want to get familiar with a topic before starting actual research. As I said at the beginning: It's not about what books you use, it's how you handle the information.

If you are really interested in researching the topic, you shouldn't dismiss my comment by "Bah, it's only Wikipedia, you are wrong!", but you should get a copy of the Annotated Hobbit (if you don't have it already) and look that quote up. Maybe it is nonsense, maybe it isn't - in both cases you can expand your knowledge by it instead of insisting on (perhaps false) information you already posess.

So, and now this text became much too long (again). To return to the topic: If you are interested in the things that may have inspired Tolkien, I suggest reading the Middle German poems I mentioned earlier. I am sure Tolkien knew those texts by heart and even if he didn't use them as inspiration (which I highly doubt), they are pretty similar nonetheless and interesting quite so. A good point to start would be the Thidreksaga (both Nordic and German) because here you will encounter Dwarfs exactly like they are portraied by Tolkien (small men, often bearded, living underground and in mountains, firce fighters and obsessed by gold and forging (magical) weapons). A good introduction is "Einführung in die mittelhochdeutsche Dietrichepik" by Joachim Heinzle (don't know if it is translated into English, sorry), where you will find listed all primary sources in edition and translation.
No matter what, those texts are worthy a read because basically they are 800 years old Pen&Paper-Adventures come to life.

Last but not least, here is a picture that illustrates one of Thidreks/Dietrichs adventures when he captures the dwarf Alberich. Albeit it is a rendition from modern times (1883) it shows that the picture of the bearded small man was known long before Tolkien was even born

Edited by RedDragon, 22 February 2015 - 07:41 AM.

[Catalina Steiner]

Thread closed by request of the thread-opener.