For Sale! Apple Driven Technology for $30 or less!

[Rumil]

Hi all, just a quick one on pony numbers,

Merry indeed had six ponies stabled at Crickhollow, but the hobbits only took five with them into the Forest. The sixth was Fatty Bolger's mount, that carried him (presumably unhappily!) up to the High Hay to say farewell to Frodo et al on the morning of their departure. I think its safe to say that Fredregar would have preferred to ride back to Crickhollow than hike back.

Later of course he had to run for it when the Nazgul turned up, but had to go on foot, presumably to sneak out the back way. I guess he couldn't have risked getting to the stable, and anyway would be more conspicuous fleeing by pony than on foot, and couldn't hope to outrun the black steeds of the Nazgul.

So from the Old Forest to Bree there was a riding pony each for the four hobbits, and an additional pack pony, these were the ponies that Bombadil named Sharp-Ears, Wise-Nose, Swish-Tail, Bumpkin and White-Socks.

[Mithalwen]

I don't think there is really anything problematic about this - pony (and cart) and Shank's pony were the normal methods of Shire transport as they were in England in Tolkien's youth and a while longer (we just met up with a distant cousin and my Dad was reminiscing about going on her father's milkround in the thirties and that was with pony & trap). None of the hobbits say "oh but I can't ride..." ..even Sam.. he would have been used to the ponies used by his farming connections. We know that farmers such as Maggot have working ponies and I imagine that wealthy hobbits such as Merry and Pippin had riding ponies for fun especially if they lived in rural areas.

Brandy Hall had over a hundred residents at any given time I think. I should imagine that there were probably a fair number of ponies available anyway (rather like a modern car pool). I don't imagine anyone would have batted an eyelid if Mr Merry or Mr Pippin had bought a pony or two extra -anymore than we are suprised if the modern rich have more than one car.

The only reason there were problems getting ponies at Bree was because they had all been driven off. I don't think for a moment that there was a general shortage.

[Mnemosyne]

Supposing Buckland already has a great stock of ponies of its own? Of course, that begs the question of why these particular ponies didn't already have names, but it would make a lot of sense for such a wealthy and powerful family to be in the breeding business.

Under these circumstances it wouldn't be such a big deal for Merry to make off with them at the last minute, and considering he himself is already disappearing the fact that he was running off with ponies wouldn't cause so much talk.

Plus if Buckland is into breeding, that might explain some of the affinity Merry has for Rohan, and my fic-minded self has already suggested that as a result Buckland has the best ponies in the Shire 120 years down the road...



On a side note, go to Mordor you spammer.

[Mithalwen]

Do agree on that nice Merry-Rohan link, Mnemo but I don't think the names are particularyl significant. People often do change a horses name when they buy it - Sam names Bill for example. I thin we are more anthropomorphic these days - I read this week that there has been a change in the names people give dogs so that they are now mostly human names. They may have regarded naming horses as sentimental as naming a car (though most of my cars have had names). Only in Rohan where the horses were as loved practically as their children is the name more important seemingly.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Of course, that begs the question of why these particular ponies didn't already have names

If you are referring to the fact that Tom Bombadill called them "Sharp-Ears, Wise-Nose, Swish-Tail, Bumpkin and White-Socks" I believe that it's said that (paraphrasing) "after that they never replied to another name" which implies they HAD other names before

As to how Merry got the ponies, I think we also need to consider the duration of their "conspiracy". It wasn't an overnight deal, I have always been under the impression that it was over a year in the making. So if over time a wealthy young man takes an interest in ponies and buys a few more (I'd assume he owned at least a couple) it would not raise THAT many eyebrows

And of course, by the time they realized Merry had disappeared with five ponies and three friends there were greater things to worry about than why he got the ponies in the first place

[Morsul the Dark]

also he may have gotten some money from pippi weren't the tooks fairly wealthy

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

also he may have gotten some money from pippi weren't the tooks fairly wealthy

My understnding is that the Tooks were as close as monarchy that the Shire got, the Brandybucks were the same in Buckland.

As far as ponies go, Merry could have just taken some from his father. Or perhaps, Merry owned his own ponies. He's the heir to Buckland basically, so, he probably has at least one pony of his own. Perhaps he carried out the purchase (if he did, in fact, buy the ponies) in his own name. The population of the Shire and Buckland probably would not find it strange that Merry Brandybuck bought some live stock.

[radagastly]

Only have to say that six ponies aren't that big of a deal. I was watching a news story on Polo this morning (I should say, children's Polo!), and (apparently) one requires at least six (if not seven) such ponies just to get through a Polo match. (Apparently, it consists of six periods of seven minutes each, but each one is so intense that the riders need a new pony each period).

Now, bearing in mind that both Merry and Pippin were nobility, and allowing each two day's worth of ponies (even American Cowboys required at least three horses each , just to do their job in a six-day week.) A six pony purchase would not only have raised no feathers, the only grumble might have been that he wasn't buying enough this time around.

His problems in Bree had nothing to do with the going rate of ponies, but more to do with how much money he actually thought to put into his wallet before he left.

[Rumil]

On Tom and the ponies,

I had the impression that Tom knew the 'real' names of the ponies, in some mysterious way. Perhaps they had names beforehand, but these were just the names that hobbits gave them. A bit like the dwarves with hidden real names and names for everyday use.

Perhaps the names that Tom used were direct translations from the 'horse-ish'?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Farael

As to how Merry got the ponies, I think we also need to consider the duration of their "conspiracy". It wasn't an overnight deal, I have always been under the impression that it was over a year in the making. So if over time a wealthy young man takes an interest in ponies and buys a few more (I'd assume he owned at least a couple) it would not raise THAT many eyebrows

Nice points Farael, especially since it was no doubt widely known that Merry was arranging matters for Mr Baggins' well publicised relocation to Crickhollow. I think we can safely assume Merry would have had a pony or two at his disposal (he drove the cart and meets the walkers at the Ferry on horseback (of course that may have been the same pony but quite feasible that the son of the Master would have had a riding pony and a driving pony... ). But I am sure that noone would have batted an eyelid at him acquiring a few more for the use of Frodo and Pippin in the same way that someone moving out of town now may need to buy a car.

[Farael]

I was just reading a book I bought recently about the battle of Agincourt, and I found it rather remarkable that even the lesser nobility were "allowed" (read: paid for by the King) to take six horses each for the invasion, and often they took more on their own expense. Greater nobles took horses in their hundreds just for their own use. The members of their household took their allotted number of horses on top of that!

So, if both Merry and Pippin are sons of very influential nobility figures, it would only make sense that the Brandybucks and Tooks owned thousands of ponies among the head of the family and his principal relatives. All of a sudden, six ponies doesn't seem like that much, does it?

That is, assuming that medieval Europe (or at least England) was influential on how Tolkien imagined The Shire, which I believe is a safe bet.

[alatar]

I will buy that maybe, just maybe, the purchase of six ponies was (1) not considered too unusual, (2) not too costly for our small group of conspirators. As evidence I note that, upon learning that there are six ponies stabled across the field, Frodo doesn't exclaim, "My word! However did you come across so many, and where did you find the funds?"

That said, I will not buy that ponies were very ubiquitous. Some of the posts above had me envisioning vast grassy plains like those found in the old American West, where the buffalo roamed in herds in the millions - but in this case it would be ponies.

Where would one get the fodder for such a four-legged army? None of the inhabitants of Bag Hill were seen riding ponies. Frodo, when he considers whether to ride or to walk to Crickhollow, chooses to walk. Had he decided otherwise, he would have ridden *behind* a pony, not atop one. The few, if any ponies seem to be work animals and not part of the general transportation system.

And for a community to produce ponies in excess would put stress on the system, and obviously, of course, attract wolves (as we see later in FotR).

Not sure any of that is worth any silver pennies...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Frodo, when he considers whether to ride or to walk to Crickhollow, chooses to walk.

Frodo walked the walk and talked the talk.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by alatar

That said, I will not buy that ponies were very ubiquitous. Some of the posts above had me envisioning vast grassy plains like those found in the old American West, where the buffalo roamed in herds in the millions - but in this case it would be ponies.

Where would one get the fodder for such a four-legged army? None of the inhabitants of Bag Hill were seen riding ponies. Frodo, when he considers whether to ride or to walk to Crickhollow, chooses to walk. Had he decided otherwise, he would have ridden *behind* a pony, not atop one. The few, if any ponies seem to be work animals and not part of the general transportation system.


Not sure any of that is worth any silver pennies...

We do not see many things that nevertheless must have existed... unless you believe that the female population of ME was about six .

There are several parts of the British Isles where even in these latter days ponies roaming free are ubiquitous ..where I live, for example, has these little chaps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest_pony

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

Where would one get the fodder for such a four-legged army? None of the inhabitants of Bag Hill were seen riding ponies. Frodo, when he considers whether to ride or to walk to Crickhollow, chooses to walk. Had he decided otherwise, he would have ridden *behind* a pony, not atop one. The few, if any ponies seem to be work animals and not part of the general transportation system.

Hobbiton seems to have been a fairly large settlement by hobbit standards, and I would posit that many of the things villagers would need for daily living would have been available nearby, doing away with the need for everyone to have their own riding ponies. One or two farms in the area to supply the animals when someone needed to travel into other parts of the Shire should have been sufficient. When one gets to more remote parts of the country we start seeing private owners such as Farmer Maggot, who kept at least two.
And Frodo's reasons for walking were for pleasure, and a last look at his home before going off into unknown dangers. I think I would have done the same.

Originally Posted by alatar

And for a community to produce ponies in excess would put stress on the system, and obviously, of course, attract wolves (as we see later in FotR).

Well, hobbits apparently had no lack of food under ordinary circumstances, and if they had sufficient arable land for the growing of crops, I see no reason they would have lacked land for grazing and ranching. As a matter of fact, grazing animals can have, shall we say, a fertilizing effect on cropland can't they?

[Farael]

Originally Posted by alatar

That said, I will not buy that ponies were very ubiquitous.

Ah, but I thought that a medieval England example would be applicable! Furthermore, owning a horse does not mean that you keep it in your backyard! My girlfriend owns a horse and she (the horse) is in a barn with other horses owned by other people. Who's to say there weren't large horse farms?

To answer further concerns, I've always imagined Hobbiton and Buckland as cities after a fashion. Sure, they weren't cities by our current definition but they were more densely populated than the countryside. So, while moving around these places hobbits would not have a great need for a pony. Furthermore, people who did not travel much (or only travelled for fun, like Frodo) would have no need to own a pony!

That, however, is not to say that ponies were not readily available. It just means that they were not consistenly used by cityfolk.