forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Everything is 'based' on something... just saying

Stormcrow wrote: NO! Nononononono! It isn't. No!

Much detail is drawn from the LITERATURE of Dark Ages Northern Europe, but you can't say Middle-earth equals Europe and apply any old correspondence you like.

Stormcrow wrote:Middle-earth is NOT, NOT, NOT "based on" medieval Europe. You can't look at the politics of medieval Europe and apply them to the politics of Middle-earth. One of the few direct "based on" things we get from Tolkien is the Rohirric culture being based on Anglo-Saxon culture (which he lamely denied). Other than that, there's no direct mapping between a Middle-earth culture and a real-world culture.

What Tolkien did was to write stories inspired by the LITERATURE—not history—of ancient and medieval Northern Europe. His major themes and language come largely from this. The Hobbit is not "based on" Beowulf, but many of its elements and themes are inspired by it.

Interesting. I don't think anyone here believes ME "equals" medieval Europe. As you state, the technology and customs Tolkien uses parallels details drawn from the literature of Dark Age Northern Europe, which in turn was based on past and contemporary technology, events, and customs (occasionally spiced with lurid and titillating fictional characters and monsters).

It's as though you are stating (vehemently) that Tennyson's Idylls isn't based on Dark Age Europe because its based on Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur.

Beran said, in other words, that Middle-earth is based on medieval Europe, so we can analyze the politics of medieval Europe to figure out the politics of Middle-earth.

I object on the grounds that Middle-earth is not simply a fantastic recreation of medieval Europe, so you can't extrapolate information based on such a relationship.

You can't look at succession laws and customs of medieval Europe to figure out the succession laws and customs that apply to Aragorn claiming the throne of Gondor.

Stormcrow wrote:Beran said, in other words, that Middle-earth is based on medieval Europe, so we can analyze the politics of medieval Europe to figure out the politics of Middle-earth.

You can't look at succession laws and customs of medieval Europe to figure out the succession laws and customs that apply to Aragorn claiming the throne of Gondor.

Well that I can agree with. The only thing more convoluted and bewildering than medieval politics is the ascension claims and processes behind the 'elections' of caesars.

Stormcrow wrote:Beran said, in other words, that Middle-earth is based on medieval Europe, so we can analyze the politics of medieval Europe to figure out the politics of Middle-earth.

I object on the grounds that Middle-earth is not simply a fantastic recreation of medieval Europe, so you can't extrapolate information based on such a relationship.

You can't look at succession laws and customs of medieval Europe to figure out the succession laws and customs that apply to Aragorn claiming the throne of Gondor.

Actually, you can. You just can't say with certainty that it's the English model, the Roman Model, or the Russian Model, or some hyrbid, but any of them have commonalites; you can, however, rule out the Polish Kingdom's.

The healing hands of a king thing is found in English and French medieval literature and historical documents. Check out http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/brought ... sevil.aspx for a description of how it was thought to work and which disease it was supposed to 'cure'.

aramis wrote: Actually, you can. You just can't say with certainty that it's the English model, the Roman Model, or the Russian Model, or some hyrbid, but any of them have commonalites; you can, however, rule out the Polish Kingdom's.

And therefore you can't.

The closest thing to a "rule" would be the central thesis of the political science book "The Dictator's Handbook" (poor name; great book). To wit: no leader rules by himself; they all depend on an essential coalition of supporters to put them in power and keep them there, and therefore the essential coalition must be kept happy.

But that's real life. In a fantasy world it works however the author wants it to.

Elfcrusher wrote: no leader rules by himself; they all depend on an essential coalition of supporters to put them in power and keep them there, and therefore the essential coalition must be kept happy.

But that's real life. In a fantasy world it works however the author wants it to.

And even it it was true for Middle-Earth, in that case Aragorn had a big coalition aligned with him:

Boromir backs Aragorn
The Charge Nurse of the Houses of healing (what's her name...Rachet?) backs Aragorn
Casper and his traitorous bunch "backs" Aragorn
Faramir backs Aragorn
Elrond backs Aragorn
Arwen backs Aragorn
Gandalf backs Aragorn
Santa backs Aragorn (Oh, wait he was in Narnia not ME)
The Easter Bunny supports Aragorn

I'd add Imrahil to that bunch.

Beran wrote:Might is right, Denethor (if he had survived) is in charge of Gondor. He is the law.

Pretty mighty seems to me, more than Denethor could bring to his side. Even Beregond, from his Royal Guard, was against him...

Well....just to play Devil's advocate, most of the people supporting Aragorn don't really have much influence on Denethor or play any role in keeping him in power. Maybe Faramir, but Denethor gives him a suicide mission, which is a classic way for Dictator's to reward disloyalty.

We'd have to look at the power brokers in Gondor and see which way their sympathies lie, which would most likely be in whichever direction gave them the most personal benefit.

But, again, that's the way the real world works, and like the weight of plate armor and the year the backpack was invented, I (personally) care much more about an engaging tale than I do about realism.

This is really becoming a "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" debate.

(That said, for non-gaming reasons I highly recommend The Dictator's Handbook. It does for political science what Maxwell did for electromagnetism.)

I thought Maxwell was the man with the hammer?