Searching for a lore Accurate Size of Mumakil

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

So we can see from the text it is not saying the beast was bigger than a house, only that "it looked to him" and that "fear and wonder" enlarged the beast in the hobbits eyes. But that it was indeed a very large creature.

Right. But again, the animal did have the remains of a 'war-tower' on its back. How high would such a tower have been? depends on its purpose, which I would posit was for observation. So I would estimate a height of at least 10-15 feet for the tower. If that was approximately equal to the height of the creature's back from the ground, that seems reasonably effective for the purpose, as well as not being unduly unstable.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

This also brings up the question of the size of a house, we would assume sam would use his typical hobbit hole size house. I am unsure of the size of a hobbit hole, but would they be 30 feet high? if the oliphaunt is 20 at the shoulder like you suggest, i dont think so. Maybe.

Hobbits were said to have had a general dislike of heights, so most Shire-houses were likely one-story. Certainly the ones seem by Sam would probably have been on the smaller side, since the bigger houses seem to have been in the Eastfarthing where the majority of Stoors were located (not to mention Brandy Hall). Roof height of the 'normal' residential house in the Shire could possibly be around 15 feet.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Right. But again, the animal did have the remains of a 'war-tower' on its back. How high would such a tower have been? depends on its purpose, which I would posit was for observation. So I would estimate a height of at least 10-15 feet for the tower. If that was approximately equal to the height of the creature's back from the ground, that seems reasonably effective for the purpose, as well as not being unduly unstable.

Yes it was large enough for a tower as were African and Asian elephants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant

I think being on the back of a large elephant alone provides the purpose of observation. A tower would add protection i think. I am not so sure how high it could be and stable upon such a beast.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Hobbits were said to have had a general dislike of heights, so most Shire-houses were likely one-story. Certainly the ones seem by Sam would probably have been on the smaller side, since the bigger houses seem to have been in the Eastfarthing where the majority of Stoors were located (not to mention Brandy Hall). Roof height of the 'normal' residential house in the Shire could possibly be around 15 feet.

interesting.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Yes it was large enough for a tower as were African and Asian elephants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant

I think being on the back of a large elephant alone provides the purpose of observation. A tower would add protection i think. I am not so sure how high it could be and stable upon such a beast.

Note that historical war-elephants were typically the smaller Asian species- so the tower is no indication of vast size. On the other hand, we have the author's statement (following on from your quote) that-

...the Mûmak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him dors not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live now in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty.

So we are talking about something *significantly* larger than a modern elephant. Beyond that it's hard to say exactly how large a creature Tolkien had in mind. My personal image is of something rather smaller than the movie versions, however. Perhaps it's a practical issue- I mean how would you tame those things in the first place?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Perhaps it's a practical issue- I mean how would you tame those things in the first place?

To quote a wise old sage, "size matters not". Why couldn't a giant beast be tamed as a smaller one: with food?

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Note that historical war-elephants were typically the smaller Asian species- so the tower is no indication of vast size. On the other hand, we have the author's statement (following on from your quote) that-

So we are talking about something *significantly* larger than a modern elephant. Beyond that it's hard to say exactly how large a creature Tolkien had in mind. My personal image is of something rather smaller than the movie versions, however. Perhaps it's a practical issue- I mean how would you tame those things in the first place?

Good post. I think that quote fits into tolkiens “A large elephant of prehistoric size.” But i am not sure it demands a "significantly" larger beast.

...the Mûmak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him dors not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live now in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty.

Is this quote saying that the mumakil seen by sam is a smaller version of older descendants? than that would not tell us its size compared to a modern elephant. Since it reads that now walk on middle earth, thus its hard to conclude a comparison with modern elephants. Plus a mumakil the size of my op would be 161% times the size of an Asian elephant.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Good post. I think that quote fits into tolkiens “A large elephant of prehistoric size.” But i am not sure it demands a "significantly" larger beast.

...the Mûmak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him dors not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live now in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty.

Is this quote saying that the mumakil seen by sam is a smaller version of older descendants? than that would not tell us its size compared to a modern elephant. Since it reads that now walk on middle earth, thus its hard to conclude a comparison with modern elephants. Plus a mumakil the size of my op would be 161% times the size of an Asian elephant.

No, the "now" is from the perspective of a later time (than that of "Lord of the Rings"), and the Mûmak described as "a beast of vast bulk" is what Sam saw (or its kind). That really seems to me the only natural reading. The entire point of that passage is to tell the reader, "hey, this thing was even bigger than modern elephants"

Here's the whole thing together:

Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to him, a grey-clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mûmak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live now in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty.

Not very helpful for a precise estimate of size, though: "It was really, really big... in fact it was bigger than really really big... OK maybe it wasn't *that* big... but then again, it actually was really, really big..."

[Inziladun]

Ok, after a little research, I found this from the HOME tome The War of the Ring:

'A large elephant of prehistoric size, a war-elephant of the Swertings, is loose, and Sam has gratified a life-long wish to see an Oliphaunt..'

So, 'prehistoric' is naturally a bit ambiguous. But a source I rather respect for scientific accuracy has this estimate of what seems to be reasonably Oliphaunt-like. The possible shoulder height of this creature was about 16ft.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Ok, after a little research, I found this from the HOME tome The War of the Ring:



So, 'prehistoric' is naturally a bit ambiguous. But a source I rather respect for scientific accuracy has this estimate of what seems to be reasonably Oliphaunt-like. The possible shoulder height of this creature was about 16ft.

good stuff thanks