The elves and the romans

I feel that in many ways the elves resemble the romans from the perspective of the celtic people of europe in the era just before the fall of rome. These new much more advanced peoples entering thier lands and building great architectural masterpieces before dissapearing back across the sea for a reason unknown to these people. This explains the diminishing technology save for those few who remained behind, is there any truth in this?

[Tinuviel the Nightingale]

Isn't this something to do with allegory?

[HCIsland]

I would argue Numenor is closer to Rome as far as it's history goes.

H.C.

[Daniel Telcontar]

I think the numenoreans are a mixture of egyptians and romans; they built enormous monuments like the egyptians, but also left behind roads, harbours and cities that other civilizations could use when they had to abandon them (e.g. Umbar, and the roads in Ithilien that Faramir mentions the Haradrim use.

[Arwen Evenstar the Fair]

I agree with Daniel Telcontar... they are some interesting parallels with Elves and the Romans and Egyptians.

[Rumil]

I'd compare the Elves with the Greeks, and the Numenoreans with the Romans. The Greeks seem to have invented all sorts of artistic and practical endeavours, democracy, lots of mathematics, science (pretty much) and had great impact upon architecture, philosophy, literature and drama etc. The Romans tended to adopt these notions and adapt them for practical use in Empire-building.

The Gondorians can then be equated with the Byzantines, sharing the situation of being the remaining half of a once great empire, still powerful but looking increasingly vulnerable to their enemies and needing to find foreign troops to fight for them (ie Franks and Varangians / Rohirrim). I've often thought that the troops of Gondor may have resembled Byzantine infantry in that they mixed spearmen and bowmen in the same units.

[Durelin]

Yes, I'd say the elves are more like the ancient Greeks. They had much renaissance in philosophy, beautiful architecture, polotics. They were into the arts a lot, though Romans did were some too, and they also had excellent architecture, but more of their energy went into war. Yeah, Numenoreans sound good as Romans. But, the Greeks weren't bad fighters, as the elves are, elves are just more into the peaceful stuff. But, then again, maybe I'm wrong. It's hard to make connections betweem fantasy and reality! Hmmmmm...I'm trying to think of more connections that I might do better with, but I've gone blank.

Why did I post that? Come on people, contradict me! I'm waiting! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Manwe Sulimo]

Actually, I'd compare the Elves to the Native Americans (and not just because of the bow and arrow thing). The Native Americans were much more in touch with nature than technology and such, and also had an elf-like, helpful demeanor (remember the Puritans and the corn).

Númenóreans would definetly be Roman, Orcs would be Vikings, and the Gondorians/Rohirrim would be Byzantines (left over from Romans).

[Voralphion]

I'd compare the Elves to the Native Americans

Although the points you made to back this up are interesting, I would have to disagree with you here, in that ME was meant to be a mythology for Britain and Europe so any comparisons would have to be European.
Also there are many other cultures that lived in harmony with nature so the native americans aren't the only ones in that respect.

[ April 13, 2003: Message edited by: Voralphion ]

[Bruce MacCulloch]

Orcs would be Vikings

Hardly.

[the guy who be short]

in the lost road, jrrt makes the numenoreans sound like ancient egyptians. i dont think he makes any references to other ancient civilisations, or maybe i missed them, but the elves dont really remind me of any. they were fairer and wiser han any ancient civilisation. maybe aliens?

[Afrodal Fenyar]

Yes, Tolkien said that the Numenoreans are like ancient egyptians. But I think they are very much like Romans too.

In their mightiest days, they both were truly the greatest might in the world(well, the Valar can't really be counted), but were eventually divided(Arnor/Gondor, East Rome/West Rome). West Rome eventually fell and was divided, as was Arnor, but Byzant and Gondor survived.

But the elves.. Njah, I don't think there's anything in our world that they could resemble. Well, maybe us Finns.. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Well, the one thing that must be considered, besides the relative perspective of less sophisticated contemporaries looking at these ancient and classical civilizations, is the shear level of slavery, brutality, cruelty and so forth that characterized those societies. In these very common regards, they are more on a par with the forces of Sauron.

The Roman Coliseum might only have compared with Numenor prior to its downfall.

Although the contrast among the Dunedain and Men of Darkness or Wild makes one think of the relative achievements of Rome, Hellas and the Great Near Eastern Cultures from a distinctively non-barbarian point of view, JRRT was patterning off of something that never really existed.

His high societies were distinctively late medieval or even post-medieval/pre-industrial in many ways. At a cultural level, however, he was going for a mixture of Iron Age European valour and natural nobility (sans Paganistic fear and bloodlust), in combination with early Christian piety, literacy and Culture (with a big "C" which had survived from the late Roman period).

In a relatively humane sense, this sort of amagalmation did to some extent flourish in the British Isles prior to the Vikings, but especially pre-Norman, among Tuetons, Celts and pre-Celtic groups.

JRRT's orignal inspiration was to recapture something of what he considered to have been lost in the aftermath of 1066.

Even our caricature of the Vikings is really a Norman invention. Less the naval technology, organization and commercial savvy, the Vikings and Varangians were more comparable to the Beornings, Bardings and Eorlingas, who had a somewhat Sarmathian-like Horse-based culture, with very much the values and ethos of the Anglian tribes.

The Men of the Wild or Darkness, and the heathen kings that Gandalf mentions, really correspond to how Christian would see many who did not know the Light of Christ, and thus, who live with an oppressing and corrupting fear of death. This was probably no less true of the ancient afterlife-obsessed Egyptians, mystical, epicurian and cynical Greeks, and bloody-minded Romans.

[Lalaith]

Bruce, I'm glad you stepped in there.
Orcs and Vikings, indeed.

You speak evil of that which
is fair beyond the reach of your thought, and only little wit can excuse you.

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Well, maybe vikings are not exactly fair beyond the reach of thought. But coincidently, as I'm quoting Gimli, I'd be prepared to accept an analogy between Vikings and Dwarves.

[Manwe Sulimo]

Well, think about it. Going by The Silmarillion, orcs were mostly sent out in raiding parties into Ossiriand and, later, down Sirion to Brethil. Later still, orcs became common all over Beleriand. If Beleriand is a "stand-in" for the British Isles, then it works pretty well. The Vikings periodically raided the shores of Great Britain and Ireland, pillaging and killing and plundering. Eventually, some even settled there (and all over the rest of Europe, too--the rest of Middle-earth?). Finally, the orcs were driven out by the War of Wrath, much as William the Conqueror took over and "civilized" England after Hastings.

Vikings could also be dwarves, but more as in a cultural (rather than strategic) way.

But if you don't think that's a good comparison, I ask: Who do you think could represent orcs?

[Durelin]

I have to say it once more. Just once.

Orcs are like Vikings?

Nope.

Poor Vikings. Vikings rock...

Well, with the whole Indians are like elves thing, well, you have a point, but I'm sticking with the Greeks because of the philosophy. The elves seem so philisophical to me. Someone please tell me if I'm wrong, or, if you believe I am right...please tell me why! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I can't figure that part out.

[Rumil]

Interesting post Mr. Wold,

I take your point that the ancient empires of Rome and Greece morally resembled Sauron's empire in many aspects. Tolkien's Middle Earth is very sharply split between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' if you like, whereas all human civilisations have exhibited aspects of each. I'd agree that the historical empires are more similar to the flawed 'Kings Men' party of the Numenoreans in the Second Age.

I'm not too sure on whether the Celts or Anglo Saxons were really any better. The Celts certainly indulged in human sacrifice and the Anglo-Saxons were not at all nice to my ancestors (the Welsh), parallels of the Rohirrim and the Dunlendings pehaps? I'll agree that these societies were more egalitarian than their predecessors, the Romans or their antecedents, the Normans but I think that this may be due to their lack of civilisation (in the true sense of the word ie. living in cities) and the necessary lack of depth in these societies.
I'd also be careful of the over- simplification of Christian=Good, I think Gibbon comments (in the context of the late Roman Empire) that the Christians massacred far more pagans than the pagans did Christians. After all, the victors always get the best press!

As for the Native Americans, they may have been far more 'in touch' with Nature than the Europeans, but they still managed to drive a few species to extinction. So a partial tick for elfliness, the problem being that they hadn't built up a high-tech civilisation (though their relatives in South America were certainly going for it). I'd imagine that their Tolkien counterparts would be the Nandor or Avari and perhaps the early Edainic tribes.

The Vikings certainly exhibited some orc-like features, raiding, pillaging, destroying monasteries etc., but pretty much everyone was at it in those days, so its a bit unfair to single them out. When they'd settled down a bit the Vikings were more noted for their trading and farming abilities.

[Lalaith]

Manwe, the Normans were Vikings too! Descendants of the great Viking Rollo, or Gangr-Hrolf...
(Northman = Norman)
As for 'civilising', William was a very harsh and cruel ruler. The Anglo-Saxon monarchy (think Alfred the Great) was a cultured one, as were many of the courts of the Scandinavian kings.
I'd be loth to compare any human tribe or culture to that of the Orcs. But if I really had to, I'd probably choose the Golden Horde of Ghengis Khan, who were extremely brutal in their invasions.

[Burzdol]

So, who are the orcs like then?

~Burzdol~

[Manwe Sulimo]

Yeah, but the Mongols became even more cultured than the Vikings, in Persia, Russia, and China. We could say that the orcs were like Biblical demons or something, but that'd be getting too close to the Catholic allegory stuff we try so hard to avoid...

[Ainaserkewen]

Thats a very interesting statement, I've never previously thought about it, but yes, it does seem similar. The elves were far more advanced than any other kind on Middle-earth, save Sauron and the Istari.
Hmmm. It gives you alot to think about.

[DaughterofVana]

(...) but I'm sticking with the Greeks because of the philosophy. The elves seem so philisophical to me. Someone please tell me if I'm wrong, or, if you believe I am right...please tell me why!

My take on this: during the "enlightenment" of Greece, as she became more scientific and "philosophical" (for lack of a better word), she slowly lost her faith in her theologies. Elves, on the otherhand, are said to be extremely enlightened and "philosophical", yet they still have great faith in the Valar and Eru.

Some people believe that one cannot be "philosophical" and still be a believer in a religion. Philosophy, as some define it, is the belief in asking questions--like "what is my purpose?" or "is there really a god?"--that a belief in a diety would prove kind of redundant. We would like to say that the elves were philosophical because we like them so much ... that is a valuative term to us. To be "philosophical" is to be a high-thinker, intelligent, a challenger of the status quo. But really, in that context, I don't think that the elves were really THAT kind of philosophical. They didn't need to ask those kind of questions that the greeks did, to try and explain the happenings of morality and the world around them without any relationship to a higher being. They knew how things worked in relationship to the Valar. They were one with the creative force that made nature and with nature herself ... something that the Greeks failed at in their quest for knowledge. From the theological standpoint, they (the Greeks) couldn't see the forest for the trees, and therefore differed greatly from the Elves. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

-'Vana

[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[Bill Ferny]

Invention was not a Greek virtue. In fact, both Plato and Aristotle had hardly anything good to say about those who endeavored in handiwork, thus by consequence those who invented. The most worthy of pursuits were those of a speculative nature, and only those people from an aristocratic background possessed the leisure to make such pursuits possible. Plato’s three tiered society of plebeian, soldier and statesman is not ashamed to admit that the only virtue of the plebeians and soldiers was that they made it possible for the statesmen to pursue the higher arts.

The good Roman was the epitome of the technocrat. Converse to the Greeks, the Romans had little regard for speculative pursuits, and their technology, while superior to all that had preceded it in the west, was pragmatic, unoriginal and stagnant. This is starkly demonstrated by Rome’s three great technical failures: their failure to develop the waterwheel, their failure to develop a horse harness that didn’t strangle the poor animal, and their failure to develop a feasible, adaptable economy.

(BTW, describing Greco-Roman culture in connection to the historical period called the “Renaissance” is to perpetuate a wistful fantasy. Also, democracy was an Athenian invention, not necessarily Greek per se. Plato’s Republic is not a democracy. Athenian democracy is not the root of modern democracy. Modern democracy has its roots in the social habits formed by the bylaws, communes and trade guilds of the medieval period, expounded and molded by nationalism and the humanisms of the 17th and 18th centuries. Modern western societies are more indebted to the social constructs of the twelfth through fifteenth centuries, as opposed to Classical culture, than historians of previous generations were able or willing to admit.)

The Chinese were the technically advanced peoples from circa 4 BC to AD 1000. For the most part, the Chinese seemed to have the more healthy balance between the speculative and the practical. They developed ingenious methods of agriculture, astronomical/astrological devices, alchemical (gunpowder) and metallurgical (cast iron) discoveries, clocks, and, of course, the architectural marvel of the Great Wall. Most technical innovation in the west (including late Greco-Roman technology) decimated from the far east. The problem with China was its isolation causing this decimation to take place over a very long time.

Neither the Roman or Greek models seem to fit the elves of Middle Earth. The elves are neither speculative aristocrats, nor technocratic autocrats. The only obvious parallel is the one the professor, himself, suggests: the Tuatha De Danann of Celtic myth: inherent magical abilities, immortality, and a fading away in response to human encroachment.

Orcs as Vikings? I think the professor had a much higher opinion of the Scandinavian peoples than that! After all, the hero Beowulf was a Scandinavian.

Provocative post MotW. The parallel between Roman brutality and slavery with Sauron’s evil empires was very astute.

His high societies were distinctively late medieval or even post-medieval/pre-industrial in many ways.

Very true. His depiction of cities is a far cry from the typical medieval city with open sewers and backyard cesspits.

Even our caricature of the Vikings is really a Norman invention.

Not really. Our caricature of the Scandinavians is a monastic one, mostly from Anglo-Saxon and Carolingian victims of Viking raids (negative) and depictions of mythic heroes that floated about the English isles during periods of Scandinavian occupation and settlement, i.e. Beowulf (positive). Normans, on the contrary, were the near direct descendents of Scandinavians, themselves. By the time of the Norman adventures of the eleventh century, Viking raids were an obscure memory.

The Men of the Wild or Darkness, and the heathen kings that Gandalf mentions, really correspond to how Christian would see many who did not know the Light of Christ, and thus, who live with an oppressing and corrupting fear of death.

An interesting notion, but I’m not overly convinced that pagan cultures in general actually had an oppressing and corrupting fear of death. This certainly does not seem to be the case with Celtic or especially the heroic Scandinavian mythologies. Darkness and light, though, are definitely heavy terms in the vocabulary of the Christian mythos.

I'd also be careful of the over- simplification of Christian=Good

Rumil, thankfully Gibbon is no longer considered an authority for serious historical analysis of late antiquity. He is read now only as a demonstration of the attitudes and prejudices of his own generation. For a more factual criticism and analysis of Christianity in late antiquity, try Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Excellent Empire or Henry Chadwick’s The Early Church.

Given Tolkien’s real life convictions, it may be possible that we really are dealing with just such an over-simplification.

I have to disagree with a lack of depth in Anglo-Saxon, Celtic or Scandinavian cultures, though. Archeology consistently provides us with new insight into the complexity and depth of these cultures. Such an impression is mainly due to the failure of these societies to provide us with written documentation.

Given the Scandinavian predilection for the horse, the parallel between the peoples of Rohan and the Scandinavian people can’t be ignored. Though I also see an obvious parallel between the peoples of Rohan and the Lombards.

In the case of Gondor, once again I think the best parallel would be the one mentioned by Tolkien, himself (somewhere in his letters, I believe): an enduring version of the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. Geographically it makes sense. The Corsairs and men of Umbar are described with imagery clearly reminiscent of Arabs. Carolingian Europe was constantly threatened by Saracen raids from the south and south-west. The various peoples of eastern Middle Earth are very much like the various pagan peoples that constantly threatened Charlemagne’s eastern border. The men of Rohan who originally came from the far north are described with imagery very much like the Scandinavian peoples who inhabited the lands north of Charlemagne’s continent. Interestingly enough, the Scandinavian peoples who settled on the continent, and subsequently became the Normans, settled in the western portion of Charlemagne’s former empire. The peoples of Rohan came from the north and settled in the western portion of the Gondoran empire. In addition, in the LotR, itself, Gondor is described as having fiefs, thus feudalism. Neither Rome nor Greece can be described as feudal, but Charlemagne’s empire most definitely was moving in that direction and was already there in many respects.

DaughterofVana, I would suggest taking a look at Etienne Gilson’s The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy. Despite its obvious subject matter, therein you will find a very keen definition of philosophy and its relation to faith, and how both can exist side-by-side, co-existing in even the same sentence, and yet retain their independence without contradiction. I’ll definitely say this: a philosopher does not have to be an agnostic; Aristotle certainly was not!

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Well, first I would clarify that I was trying to take a stab at where JRRT looked for historical/legendary inspiration. I think he, and certainly I, would not suggest that anything ever existed that exhibited the social and moral civilization of the Dunedain, much less the Eldar, even if classical and ancient civilizations offer something of a model in terms of relative urban and artistic achievements.

The back-to-nature perspective about the Quendi is not without justification, but they are not "Noble Savages" or denizens of Walden Pond, but rather people operating in a spiritual context unfathomable to Men.

However much one might wish to romanticize about Native Americans, to compare Tolkien's Elves to any Western or non-Western society is ludicrous.

I would also differentiate what I said about Tolkien's idealized England and environs of circa 630 to 830 A.D., with respect to ancient/classical Celts, Tuetons or pre-Indo-Europeans. Despite the sometimes "Iron-Age" feel of Tolkien's world, these earlier groups were often characteristically Pagan Europeans, engaging in blood sacrifice, obsessed with death, and bent on brutality, sometimes even on a par with their so-called more civilized comtemporaries, such as the Egyptians, Pheonicans and Romans. Yet Pagan societies were not at all times bloodlusting heathens. Their natural spirituality could hit on true divinity and more humane ways of life.

The world of the British Isles and Anglo-Saxon England that JRRT seems to have idlycized really began after the Angles and Saxons (their absorbed Jute and Frisian cousins) had more or less stabilized rule of Eastern and Central Britain from Edinburgh to Dorchester, and had been Christianized by Continental Missionaries, as well as the Irish.

The seven or so kingdoms (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Angles, Mercia and Northumbria) that spoke dialects of Old English, which is most closely found today in "Scots" and "Plattdeutsch", co-existed at times with the various P-Celtic, Q-Celtic and Pictish kingdoms in Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, Dalydd, Strathclyde, Alba, Ireland and Brittany. Besides warfare, the Anglo-Saxon hold on most of the best lands in Britain, seems to have been facilitated by conflict among British-Roman entities, as well as the common peoples' oppression by those entities, notwithstanding a golden if brief Arthurian respite. Disease emanating from Mediterrainian contacts, as was likely maintained by the British, may also have contributed to the Anglo-Saxon's gradual, and sometimes effortless expansion over the 200 years following the exit of effective Roman authority from Britain by the early Fifth Century.

Whatever the cruel reality of warfare and politics, then and there, as well as across the channel in Charlemagne's Frankish Empire, a pious nobility and a decent type of proto-feudal civilization flourished that was culturally approximate to Tolkien's Third Age --- Dark Ages indeed! The legends and myths of these (re)christianized Anglo-Brits were not unlike his First Age.

(The Shire, of course, best compares to an out-of-the-way English village with a long-absentee Lord, of c. 1700)

As for the Vikings, I do not wish to overly emphasize revisionism. Yet to compare them to Orcs is outrageous, especially when one recognizes the Icelandic Edda as Tolkien's single greatest source of inspiration.

Clearly, heroes from Hurin to Beorn are unmistakably patterned on Viking-like personages. The "Northmen" are very much land-based Vikings in a cultural sense.

Still, the Viking stereotype is not without basis, and it does come to us from monastaries beset by early, and likely unorganized Norwegian raiders, and from the usually unfavorable military experiences of the Vikings' enemies in Ireland, Scotland and England, but it is passed to us through a Norman filter, which is not to say from the reign of William the Conqueror per se, but rather from most writers of English History from then and until nearly the present day.

It was the French-speaking, Danish-derived, Norman who wanted to portray their Saxon and Scandinavian rivals as savages, and to darken memories of the time before 1066. It was to somehow correct this distortion of the past that orignally inspired Tolkien's "Lost Tales," which in time led to Middle-Earth.

[ April 29, 2003: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[Mitheithel]

Well, I agree that Elves are similar to the egyiptians. I`m pretty much interested in Ancient Egypt myself. Ancient egyptians were great writers and scientists, and had good technologies, no slavery, so they were much smarter than other civilisations at this time. Pretty much like Elves in Middle-Earth, don`t you think?

[Bruce MacCulloch]

no slavery

Wherever did you get this idea? There is a large body of documentation regarding the slavery practiced by the ancient Egyptians. Indeed, one of the great Biblical myths (Moses) revolves directly around this very concept. While the treatment of them in Egypt was noticeably more humane than in other ancient cultures, slavery was nonetheless evident.
A good place to start research on this topic is here.

[kittiewhirl1677]

Umm, yes, we're currently studying Egypt in school(AGAIN), and yes, they did have slavery. But the slaves weren't slaves because of racism or anything, they were just captives of war, or Egyptian criminals.

[Hans Markus Rod]

It is har for me to compare orcs with some kind of men. I think Tolkien ment the orcs to be some kind of ancient relatives to men, for instance the Homo Neanderthalis, because of their primitive way of life. The Homo Neanderthalis, as the orcs had a very little developed language, and finally they were defeated by the Homo Sapiens and perished.

As for the Eorlingas i would presume they are the Celts before they wandered out of the Iberian peninsula(Spain an Portugal). Because the Celts performed human sacrifice, an were not kind at all to war prisoners they yet not fit fully in as the Eorlingas. I think the Eorlingas were some sort of blend between the Celts, Vikings and the Franks, mostly because the franks lived in allmost the same area with the same conditions.