Tolkien -- Enemy of Rome

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>China and India can take of themselves and can exploit weaker peoples even more ruthlessly than we can. Don't worry about them.<hr><br>
<br>
I’m a little bit worried anyway…<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Regards the rest of world lets not forget that we (we should include China) use most resources but we also PRODUCE most too. Of course production includes pollution but then again the sensitivity towards pollution and even PEACE grows and will give promising results only if it becomes a major policy in our "democracies", not because we produce and damage more but because there is some form of control of what governments do.<hr><br>
<br>
I don’t agree about it. For example, the waste of energy to produce a lot of useless stuff (just thinking to the incredible packaging of the goods) is simply scandalous, not justified at all. And I don’t see any serious attempt to stop the true main part of the pollution. I don’t see a REAL sensitivity, I see just “maquillageâ€Â

[Goffredo]

Regards PEACE let me say that I think PEACE in democracies can become an "real issue" in democracies while it NEVER is in non-democratic systems.<br>
<br>
More in general by "issue" I mean that the majority can and does change its mind regards some policy and governments fall! It might be difficult, because strong lobbies, powerful people and associations can do real damage by hindering the flow of information or thru other "bad" behaviour, but it is a matter of time and changes may occur. These things happen not only in fairy tails and hollywood movies but they do happen in reality, and of course you know that very well! Vietnam ended and Bush might loose the next election. Can you show me other systems that face complex issues in a better way? Are you sure an elite sub-group is good enough to handle the issues? Is it entitled? How did that sub-group get its title/credentials? By inheritance or thru a selection process? But who decides the rules on how to select? Does the elite group decide the rules? Are self-referential systems the best? Of course not!<br>
<br>
If you substitute the word PEACE with any other ISSUE (pollution, human rights, health,...) you will come to the very same conclusion: democracy is the best way, if not the ONLY way, to face these complex issues. No single group can force any policy down everyone's throat all the time. Lincoln used to say:"you can fool everyone some of the time, and you can fool some people all the time, but you cann't fool everyone all the time". In non-democratic there is no analogue of this wise sentence. There is no need for fooling as things are done/imposed irrespective of what the people think. Lincoln was wise because he realized that politians sometimes may fool the people but he shows the way by pointing out the such behaviour is actually foolish!<br>
<br>
Of course democracy is not perfect and it is not easy, as you must always stay vigilent, and work work and work. There is no alternative!<br>
<br>
Regards the useless stuff we produce I suggest you be careful. Someone could say thay most human behaviour is useless. Most things we produce and DO are useless to someone. How do you keep people from doing what you say is useless? Suppose I say that praying several times a day is useless, that being Jewish, Christian, Islamic is useles, that discussing religion instead of science is uselss. Wait a minute: even science is useless because what is important is technology and applications! What about the waste of time in reading peotry or fiction. How absurd to pay good money to buy a book or pay people to write that useless stuff. Music too,.... Where do you draw the line? You cann't draw the line! Indeed I thank the Gods you cann't.<br>
<br>
What is morally right and wrong is not written in some stone and even the 10 commandments need to this day some degree of interpretation. The integralist approach is too dangerous to be considered stupid.<br>
<br>
jeff<br>
<br>
p.s. I always like Mel Brook's idea of Moses dropping and breaking a third stone with other 5 commandements. We all shudder at the thought what other 5 things we were supposed/not supposed to do. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 3/8/04 7:14 pm<br></i>

[JRSCline]

Okay, very interesting, and of course tempting, for I too am a political animal with theories of my own... <span style="text-decoration:underline">but</span>! Not Tolkien-related, and therefore, better discussed in a new thread, very delicately...<br>
<br>
Please turn back on-topic to Tolkien.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>

[Primitivus]

I am entirely of German and Norwegian stock myself...

Ditto. Same northern European stock...

...though I do not write (or believe in) fairy tales that suggest these illiterate, savage and backward peoples (in ancient times that is), were the creators of a magnificent civilization as Tolkien would have us believe.

Nor do I believe in them. However, I think you are comparing the proverbial apple and the orange--two distinct concepts.

Creating (fantasy) myth and historical revisionism are completely different activities. Tolkien would never have intended that people regard his inspirational (in the heroic sense) tale to be mistaken for actual history.

[Primitivus]

Tolkien had an appreciation of Latin not just because of the literature it preserved (which he knew and revered) or the Catholic tradition it maintained (which he reverenced devoutly) but because it is a superbly beautiful language. He paid tribute to it in his own linguistic inventions.

Well said. This definitely echoes my own understanding from my reading of Tolkien's works, and my reading about his life.

[Primitivus]

The fact that he did not "promote" his faith overly in his fictional work is simply a matter of choice - he found the overt Christian allegory in the work of his friend C.S. Lewis rather clumsy. Despite this, he wrote in one letter that The Lord of the Rings was "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision".

As a "fan" of both Tolkien and Lewis, I have to concur with this statement. I might go so far as to say that he considered some of Lewis' writing rather pedestrian. Nevertheless, the two remained lifelong friends (although the marriage of C.S. Lewis to a divorcee greatly saddened J.R.R. Tolkien)...

[Anonymous]

Robert,<br>
Although the Beowulf manscript (apparently Tolkiens most favorite fable), was found in Britain, it is unquestionably a Germanic-Sandanavian tale with no British tie-ins at all, save for the anglo-saxon invaders taking it there. <p></p><i></i>

You seem to be confusing "British" as in the UK with "British" as in the ancient inhabitants of same. Since the inhabitants of England named it that because they were Angles, it should be obvious that this part of Britain ceased to be British in the racial sense at that time. I keep telling schoolchildren - the British who kicked Julius Caesar's butt were not our ancestors; our ancestors, in their turn, kicked their butts - along with those of their Romano-British allies - and wound up top of the heap. It is through these people that there is a direct cultural connection with Beowulf - they were Germano-Scandinavian peoples. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon literature, but it doesn't take someone of his academic standing to recognise a "British" tie-in. LOTR does not present a great Saxon civilization - Rohan, the only overtly Saxon-style nation in the book, is still a place of wooden long-halls (LOOK at the PICTURES) and wooden houses. The only great building they have is the fortification of Helm's Deep.

Romans learned the use of mail from the Celts - the oval scutum, from the Celts, the Port-agen style helmet from -hey! Guess who? and the Gladius Hispaniensis from - Oh, look! It's the Celts! Oh! Who's that climbing up the Citadel of Rome? Whoops! It's them pesky Celts! The Romans recognised the superiority of their neighbours so fully that they attempted genocide against them. Civilised, Romans? Only as a result of their Greco-Trojan-Etruscan-Celtic heritage. Why then, were they so successful? Recignising the superiority of the cultures around them they sought to destroy them with a ruthlessness unmatched until Hitler. Oh, hey! We're back with Nazis!

[Arthes]

Greetings
I have only just come across this thread and am somewhat puzzled by it...
If I pointed some people from The Tolkien Society I know in this direction..there would be hel let loose.... :lol:
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned by someone....JRR Tolkien was a practising Roman Catholic with a strong love of nature, folklore and the past.
A Professor of Anglo Saxon at Oxford with a creative mind that wandered here and there creating languages and peoples that made up the worlds of Middle Earth.
Although a staunch Catholic his Gods and Goddesses of an obviously Pagan world were created with reverance, the Elves too belong to a Pagan/Heathen world...the name of Ingwe the leader of the Vanyar Elves who travelled to Valinor was taken from the real name of the Norse God of the Vanir, Frey®, ruler of the Light Elves or Ljossalf, Tolkien called them the Calaquende... those who had seen the light of Valinor and the twin trees....Laurelin and Telperion
LOTR Trilogy, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and the books of History of Middle Earth...(including The Lost Tales)
The Book of Lost Tales One
The Book of Lost Tales Two
The Lays of Beleriand
The Shaping of Middle-Earth
The Lost Road and Other Writings
The Return of the Shadow
The Treason of Isengard
The War of the Ring
Sauron Defeated
Morgoth's Ring
The War of the Jewels
The Peoples of Middle-Earth
....are based on the history, mythology and legends of the English (speaking) peoples, Numenor the land of men being Atlantis....!
The Celtic tradition is also represented and the Tuatha de Danaan. (Teleri Elflord Lenwe, was also known as Dan) The Galadhrim remind me of these or the Vanir.
Aragon is most likely based on King Arthur.....with Anduril his Caliburn...!
How many Christian authors are there, that respect the distant Pagan past and it's beliefs without belittling and turning it into a lesson of morals...with the Christians on the winning side of course...
Mordor is based on something that Tolkien disliked and abhorred...encroaching concrete and factories and those who worked to destroy nature (remember the Ents fighting back) and humanity to create a dark and smoky place ....inspired by Birmingham..... :lol:
His experiences during WWI with the Lancashire Fusiliers (1915-18) which left him suffering with shell shock also added to his visions of war and death.
Regards
Arthes

[Tarbicus]

The Romans recognised the superiority of their neighbours so fully that they attempted genocide against them..... Recignising the superiority of the cultures around them they sought to destroy them with a ruthlessness unmatched until Hitler.

Nope, sorry Paul, I don't accept that. I came across this subject elsewhere and did some research into the comparisons between Hitler and the Romans and their genocidal acts, so I'm re-posting it here:
_________________________________________________

Here are links to historical population estimates to help you out:

Historical Estimates of World Population

Historical Estimates of World Population 2

Historical Human Populations

As Rome went from somewhere around 753 BCE to 850 CE (correct me if I'm wrong) I think you can take the average estimate at 1 CE, which seems to be around 100,000,000. The problem is different estimates put it at 300,000,000. Let's say 200,000,000 then.

As Hitler was in power, initially as Chancellor, from 1933 to 1945 (1948 according to 'Hellboy', but I don't trust that data wink.gif ) I think it's safe to use the average population of 1930 at 2,070,000,000.

So, at 50 million deaths, Hitler's actions caused the deaths of 2.42% of the world's population. As a yearly average, that makes it 4,166,667 per year.

Caesar and others seem to have been rather good at genocide also, so it would need to include those deaths. This is a link to the
Body Count of the Roman Era.

The author agrees all figures are debatable, and Gibbon is used heavily. It says the body count is 8,665,000. averaged over 603 years, this makes the average annual body count to be 14,370 deaths. Put that against the 200,000,000 average population, you have 0.00007185% per year.

As an annual average death toll though, I reckon it to be:

Hitler and the Nazis; 4,166,667 pa
Rome 753 BCE to 850 CE; 14,370 pa

The population of 1930 CE was 10.35 times that of 1 CE. The average death toll was 289.96 times greater per annum, without population taken into account. I make it to be 28.02 times greater on average taking population numbers into account.

So, Hitler killed over 28 times more people than the Romans. No contest, and rather grim considering the events and death tolls from comparable situations of the last 100 years, when we are supposed to be more 'advanced' than Rome. However, advances in medicine have likely saved a lot more lives, so it may be interesting to compare it with general mortality rates as well.

There's more:

....on an average annual basis Stalin and Mao pretty (tentatively) much killed the same amount of people, depending on which figures are used.

Mao: between 0.69 million, and 1.72 million a year.
Stalin: between 0.69 million, and 2.41 million a year.

However you look at the figures for Hitler, he pretty much surpasses them both by a long way (though how do you compare one murderous evil psycopath to another?) :

Between 1.67 and 4.16 million a year (20 or 50 million people 1933-45)
Between 2.86 and 7.14 million a year (20 or 50 million people 1938-45)

Now if you really want to get depressed:

Forgetting fascism, I had a quick search for figures from the whole of the 20th Century. That really is depressing.

Average world population: 3,400,000,000

Total deaths caused by war, rebellion, civil war and genocide/democide:
Take your pick between 167,000,000 and 258,000,000.
D T McBride

In Rwanda in 1994, pop. 8.1 million, death toll from genocide on Tutsis was 800,000. And let's not forget Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (est. 21% of the population over 4 years). The list goes on:
raw figures
And; 30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century

[Narukami]

Dan's post are often provocative, never dull, and in this case rather amusing.

He does raise an interesting question: He asserts that the popularity of LOTR and other fantasy films does harm to the study and understanding of Ancient History.

I wonder though...

Which does more harm --

A popular fantasy film like LOTR?

or...

A popular "history" film like Scott's Gladiator?

Or Stone's Alexander The Great?

I enjoyed the LOTR (the first film more than the other two) and yes indeed, Tolkien's story is certainly of a time and place. Imaginative as they are the stories are still very narrow in their concept of peoples and places.

All of these points have been discussed above so I will not repeat them, however, I do find it interesting that a horse culture like the Riders of Rohan never developed curved swords. (I had always thought that a curved sword was better suited for fighting from horse back, though I may be mistaken.)

Likewise Gladiator and Alexander have been picked over countless times on these pages by friend and foe alike so no need to repeat these arguments either.

And yet the question remains: Which film type does more harm?

And for that matter, do either?

As someone else in this topic string already said, "I can tell the difference between a fantasy film and history."

Indeed.

My fear is that an entire generation of kids now think the Praetorian Guard wore black armor--just like the SS. :wink:

Narukami

[Caius Fabius]

Death Rates and History
It is interesting to see how many people died under the various leaders. Did you know that the death rate of Americans under the presidents George Washington to James Polk was 100% by AD2006?
The death rate of Europeans under Elizabeth I or Napoleon I was also 100% as of AD2006. The death rate of all people under the rule of Vespasian or Marcus Aurelius also happens to be 100%...... Make you stop and think... The death rate does not increase due to war, plague, famine, or genocide, since it remains constant at 100%.

hock:
Charlie Foxtrot

[Marcus Mummius]

George Washington to James Polk was 100% by AD2006?
The death rate of Europeans under Elizabeth I or Napoleon I was also 100% as of AD2006. The death rate of all people under the rule of Vespasian or Marcus Aurelius also happens to be 100%

Bastards :x

A good point indeed Caius.

Regards, :wink:

[Marius_Ursus]

If someone's already pointed this out, I apologize, but Tolkien was a Christian, and LOTR was his attempt to reconcile Christianity with modern - for his times - values, much the way his contemporary and friend C.S. Lewis did. There are numerous books about the two authors and their philosphies and friendship.

So, not to take an angsty wind out of vitriolic sails, but his writing was hardly anti-Roman.

[Felix]

Undoubtedly the most bizarre thread I have seen on these fora. hock: