Why the hell does everyone call Tolkien's work medieval? It's nowhere near medieval at all. There's no knights, no doublets, no chivalry or frigging jousting. There isn't even castles. There's strongholds and citadels yes, but, not castles. It's very annoying when some lump his epic in medieval fantasy, when it isn't.
What makes you think that any of those things are hallmarks of the medieval period? They have nation states, steel stirrups, horse collars, crossbows, but no firearms, cannons or grenades. Puts it at around the 9th century, or smack the fuck in the medieval middle.
I don't think subgenre distinctions are so clear cut. To me, epic fantasy says something about the scale of the conflict. It's world altering stuff. Which the Illiad, Odyssey, Aeneid, and the lost epics would fit in. They represent the end of the age of heroes. And it's fantasy because of magic/supernatural elements. Low fantasies can be set in secondary world's just as high fantasies can. I've only seen the low versus high distinction used to refer to the level of magic and supernatural elements present in the world. For example, A Song of Ice and Fire starts out on the low end, and has gotten progressively higher as the magic has come back into the world.
I think everybody summed it up pretty well. All you really need is magic/supernatural elements. We just seem to give it more leeway when it takes place in medieval times or earlier. But it can take place whenever/where ever you want it to. As for the: Why does Sci-fi/ Fantasy all revolve around war? They don't always. The Dream Master by Zelazny has nothing to do with war. Martian Chronicles by Bradbury has nothing to do with war either. I don't know of any Fantasy stories, as I don't really read much of the genre. I think we find war as an interesting theme because it is a cultural past time of our species, and has done both good and bad things for us. Ultimately it comes down to how you identify with the characters in the story, and how they evolve in any given scenario.
On the subject of the Odyssey, etc, yes, there were gods and monsters, and strange lands. We know, now, these don't exist, but at that time, they knew otherwise. Yes, Homer's account of the war and whatnot were fictionalized, but the people then believed that to be all it was--a historical fiction. What people took to be fact then is just different from what we take to be fact now. As for war in sf, it provides an instant sense of grandeur, and immediately tells the reader that there's a lot on the line. With Star Wars, this is played very well, but in a lot of sf novels, it's a work-saving device for an author who can't figure out some other way of making the reader care.
I'm just assuming this is sarcastic. It made me laugh. Because they were hallmarks of the Medieval Period. Nation States go back to Egypt. The stirrup appeared in 500 BC. The collar in the third century BC. And the crossbow also appeared in China, as early as 250 AD. Read a book. I've no idea why everyone thinks everything before industrial era was Medieval.
Or you could learn to read other peoples posts. The steel stirrups were invented in 7th century. The breast collar, as it was invented in 7-8th century is what they use to pull wagons, you can't do that with the yokes you're talking about. No hitched carts before then. You also might have noticed that The Lord of the Rings was written by an Englishman, about a similarly English society. If it was set in some kind of Chinese society your point about crossbows might have some mendacity. But it wasn't so it doesn't. Instead we'll go with the English adoption of the crossbow which (again) is around the 10th century. The points that you mention: have no historical hallmarks. There are castles in Europe from the 5th century onward, chivalry doesn't exist (possibly ever, at least as you understand it) until the Renaissance, and jousting? Why would the absence of a sport define the cultural period? Because you do have riders with lances. I guess because they aren't doing it in an arena for the pleasure of others, that throws off the whole marker for you?
Or, again, you could learn your history. When does Tolkien mention the presence of steel stirrups? And why does the steel part even matter? They are still stirrups regardless. I was not speaking of yokes. I was speaking of the collar that goes round the breast of the horse. Your point, unless you can't read, was clearly that crossbows are exclusively medieval. Wrong. And in Tolkien's work, the crossbows were only used by the Uruk-Hai of Isengard, who were by no means the norm. So your crossbow point is regardless anyways. And I'm a Virginian, of the USA, does that mean all of my work has to be based on Native Americans and early colonials? Yes, Tolkien liked his myths, one of his works was a rewriting of Beowulf. That doesn't mean everything in the LOTR is bloody English. The Shire and Bree are the only places that have a decidedly British tinge. No historical hallmarks? What? Chivalry may not have technically existed, but it still attached itself to the era well. The lacking of jousting does not mean Tolkien's work has no medieval elements. And yes, a sport. Do you realize that sports are considered part of culture? And do you also mean to say charging people on a horse is exclusively medieval? Spoiler, its not. My entire point is that Tolkien's LOTR is not exclusively medieval in flavor. It has Medieval stuff, yeah. Like trebuchets. Those were certainly of the period. But too much is not.
No, you still don't understand what you're talking about. The Rohirim have lances. They fight with those lances on horseback. You can't do that unless you can stand up in the saddle without throwing the weight off. You can't do that without steel stirrups. The "collar that goes around the breast of the horse" is a breasted collar, they aren't seen in Europe until the 7 or 8th century. I feel like someone wrote that down somewhere... Oh, it was me, just right up there where you could read it. And I guess you've only seen the movies if you think the Uruk-hai were the ones with crossbows. In the book Tolkein talks about crossed loops in the walls of Gondor (a castle in every way, I'm not sure what you're on about there). I'm sure I don't have to tell you what loops are, but the fact that they're crossed is vital, because a regular loop is useless to a crossbow. And I by no means said that crossbows were medieval. You can go back and look if you want. I said that they had crossbows but no firearms. This is important because Europeans used the crossbow structure to adapt the Chinese guns that had come over from the orient. Oh, I guess you did just watch the movies. The whole culture is English, from the warm beer to the latakia tobacco. If you wrote a story about Virginithia, and the land of Eussa, and then put in colonial technology, dress, and culture; and then you tried to argue that the period was not colonial at all because other countries had colonies before that period, that would be more like what you are arguing here. So you said that The Lord of the Rings wasn't medieval because there was no chivalry. I point out that chivalry didn't exist in medieval Europe. You point out that it is "attached to the era?" I don't even know what that means. And again none of the things that you mentioned are tied even to the medieval period. You kind of go off the rails after that. I pointed out above that the ability to charge someone on a horse didn't exist before the medieval period, and after the invention of guns it becomes a great tactical disadvantage. So it kind of is "exclusively medieval". Actually your point was this: Not looking like that great a point.
First off, I've read all three books, and the Silmarillion. Nowhere does he expressly say Gondor used crossbows. They used longbows, as described in the battle for Minas Tirith. The crossed loops line referred to the walls, or their fortifications I think. And you can definitely stab someone from horseback without stirrups of steel. There's material that can deal with the stress. And you do not have to stand up in the saddle. You can just, oh, I dunno, stab the dude with the freaking spear. And do you read at all? Adrianople? Alexander and his Companion cavalry? You're so ignorant as to assume charging with cavalry has never been tactically viable until the goddamn steel stirrup came around? The throat-girth design was not improved until the Chinese breast-strap or "breastcollar" harness developed during the Warring States (481 BC–221 BC) era in China.[6] The Chinese breast harness became known throughout Central Asia by the 7th century,[7] introduced to Europe by the 8th century.[7] That confirms the both of us, I suppose. And the entire culture was English? Would you mind telling me which part of England had Orcs? Or the part with the horse lords. Where's the part with the massive city of stone? Of course, I'm talking out of my ass, but you get the point. The books had accents of English culture, most evident in the Shire and Bree. And really? Tobacco and beer are your best examples of how saturated Middle-Earth is with Englishmen? Do you have any idea of how- universal alcohol and drugs are? My point with chivalry was that it was so closely associated with the era that it became inseparable from it. Jousting wasn't attached to the medieval period? Oh really? Doublets weren't either? Oh wow. I guess all of our modern history books must be so wrong. Oh dear. My point was it was nowhere near purely medieval at all. When someone says something is "medieval". I for one assume they mean its saturated with medieval reference. And Lord of the Rings is not. You sir, have no brought anything to the table to disprove me. What makes Tolkien's three book work exclusively medieval in flavor?
There is absolutely no reason at all to have a crossed loop if you haven't invented a crossbow, and there are castles all over Europe with vertical loops that prove that. You still don't know what you're talking about. There were no lancers are Adrianople. They used short swords without shields. Again nothing was every said about the existence of cavalry, but the existence of lancers. The problem there is that the person you're stabbing is going to force you off your saddle unless you can stand up. But I'll make this super easy on you. Find some period artwork that depict men with lances on horseback from before the 7th century AD. I never said that cavalry wasn't "tactically viable until the goddamn steel stirrup came around". I said that lancer's didn't exist. So if there are lances and lancers then it's after the invention of the steel stirrup. You can just admit you don't know what you're talking about. This is a safe place. Warm beer is not universal, it's actually exclusive to England, where they use a warm fermenting process. No one else in Europe (or really anywhere) did that. Same with the latakia. The fermentation process wasn't exclusive, but it's popularity was huge in England. Not that either of those things are mentioned in the book. What? No, doublets are Renaissance period. They show up in the 1500s. So the history books aren't wrong, you are. No, you said: I have a permanent record. And I never said that it was purely medieval at all. Just that the technology put it around the 9th century. edited to change some wrong information about chariots.
For fucks sake. THE FUCKING COMPANIONS DID NOT RIDE CHARIOTS. They were cavalry who rode with a shortened version of the Sarissa and a damn sword. And when did I mention lancers? I said men on horses. And honestly? If lancers are men with lances, then the cavalry folks are lancers, from all different sorts of time periods. And how about you take a real good look at the artwork of Alexander, and tell me where you see chariots that aren't Persian. And if you need a steel stirrup, how did cavalry ever work before it was invented? Since the spear is pretty damn crucial. Oh, I'll tell you one way they did it. You drop the spear, and switch to your sword. This wasn't a problem since horsemen relied on the charge to do most of their damage. The steel stirrup was never crucial. It made using a lance more effective. That's it. Why did you even bring up the warm beer and lakatia? If it served no purpose to you? If you consider the Renaissance a separate era on its own, then yes, I am wrong. And by the way, you were wrong about the horse collar, it wasn't invented in the 7th or 8th century. Yes, you did. You said some bullshit about the 9th century. Which happened to be in the Medieval era. Which, would mean you called it medieval. What you said would be the equivalent of- "Oh, no, the Legion wasn't a Roman thing, it was just used throughout the Empire's reign". It's nowhere near *pure* medieval at all. I thought my meaning was obvious. Or perhaps your oblivious. You can admit you're wrong, I won't hold it against you.
Not sure how authentic this is, but it's a native American Indian riding bareback, holding a spear. He has steel stirrups, but left them in his teepee.
Yeah, sorry, I fixed that one. You didn't mention lancers. I mentioned lancers. Repeatedly. You went off on reasons other forms of cavalry existed. I pointed out that they weren't lancers. No, there aren't any cavalry with lancers before the 7-8th century. There are lancers in The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings has technology around that of the 9th century. These are not hard points to follow. That's a spear, not a lance. The are not the same thing. The stirrup didn't make the lance more effective it made it possible. ... Yes Yes the Renaissance was a very separate period. Did you not know that? No, it was brought to Europe, you are right there, I should have specified. This does not clear at all. You said it was "nowhere near medieval." I pointed out that the technology put it at about the 9th century. I didn't say anything about absolutes. I did not declare it absolutely medieval. Pointing out the time period as an approximate is not what your saying I said. It's more like the equivalent of "all that technology in The Time Machine puts Wells work at around the turn of the 20th century." Your meaning was that it was "nowhere near medieval at all." There was no pure used. What you wrote was very clear. If your meaning was not, that's on you.
The Renaissance is a separate era. By absolutely every definition of Renaissance or medieval I've ever encountered.
Thank God. I thought I was about to have a heart attack. Saying the companions rode chariots... Then the question must be, what makes a lancer a lancer? "A lancer was a type of cavalryman who fought with a lance. Lances were used in mounted warfare by the Assyrians as early as 700 BC and subsequently by Greek, Persian, Gallic, Han-Chinese, nomadic and Roman horsemen.[1] The weapon was widely used in Asia and Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance by armoured cavalry, before being adopted by light cavalry, particularly in Eastern Europe. In a modern context, a lancer regiment usually denotes an armoured regiment." Again, courtesy of Wikipedia. Well, you were half right. And another thing. "Four tall Men stood there. Two had spears in their hands with broad bright heads. Two had great bows, almost all of their own height..." Courtesy of Tolkien. Now tell me, when do you see crossbows that are as tall as men? Never. Longbows, on the other hand... Honestly, I've always considered the Renaissance as part of the Medieval era, not really as an era in its own right. But for the sake of argument, let's just say I was wrong about the doublets. You implied through placement of time period that it was Medieval. "Puts it at around the 9th century, or smack the fuck in the medieval middle". Hmm, sounds pretty damning to me. But yes, you never did mention absolutes, that I admit. However, you did call it medieval. Look, it's late for me. I don't want to get into a "You said, I said," argument. I should have been more clear, yes, I admit that. And actually? I now realize LOTR is a bit more Medieval-ish that I originally thought. But still not purely Medieval.
