# Why High Fantasy avoids gunpowder



## Aldarion (Feb 22, 2021)

Basically, I was thinking about Tolkien, and realized that his experiences may explain general (though not universal) avoidance of gunpowder weapons in high fantasy:

gunpowder opened the gates for industrial way of war
gunpowder revolution in 14th and 15th centuries led directly though slowly towards the meatgrinder of Somme
Tolkien despised war, and especially industrialized warfare which he had experienced
being aware of the historical context, Tolkien gave gunpowder only to his bad guys who present forces of industrialization
fantasy authors copied Tolkien, and thus largely (but not always) avoided using gunpowder weapons in high fantasy settings


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 22, 2021)

Makes sense and I agree with you. Brandon Sanderson, in his second set of Mistborn books moved the time period from ancient times to industrial times and things like steam engines and guns are in active use. The main characters use guns regularly so that's one example of an author who has embraced industrial ways.


----------



## grendel (Feb 22, 2021)

Considering that IRL the Chinese (in the Far East) first developed gunpowder, maybe it just hadn't made its way to the west of M-E by the Third Age? 😎


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 23, 2021)

grendel said:


> Considering that IRL the Chinese (in the Far East) first developed gunpowder, maybe it just hadn't made its way to the west of M-E by the Third Age? 😎


Well, actually the first (at least semi-legendary) Chinese dynasties' first faint traces are at least 2,000 years after the fall of Barad-dûr. Anything resembling gunpowder then took close to 3,000 after that to appear in any texts (besides the LoTR "originals"). But then those two Blue Wizards were Istari like the three who appeared in the action of LoTR, so what's 7,000 years to them ...🤨


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Mar 11, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> Basically, I was thinking about Tolkien, and realized that his experiences may explain general (though not universal) avoidance of gunpowder weapons in high fantasy:
> 
> gunpowder opened the gates for industrial way of war
> gunpowder revolution in 14th and 15th centuries led directly though slowly towards the meatgrinder of Somme
> ...


I'm not avoiding it myself, just magic-fying it and adding some steampunk to it.



CL


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 11, 2021)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> I'm not avoiding it myself, just magic-fying it and adding some steampunk to it.
> 
> 
> 
> CL


My first reaction to this post was "can you please define 'steampunk' for an old, out-of date fart?"

Then slowly a second thought crept in (yes, unfortunately the neurons aren't as lithe as they used to be): "do I really need to know this?"

After that, with the cranium-inhabitants slowly getting warmed up (stretching and stuff? Memory becomes diffuse ...) another thought lumbered in: "If this is post Y2K stuff, will you even be able to understand it???"


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Mar 11, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> My first reaction to this post was "can you please define 'steampunk' for an old, out-of date fart?"
> 
> Then slowly a second thought crept in (yes, unfortunately the neurons aren't as lithe as they used to be): "do I really need to know this?"
> 
> After that, with the cranium-inhabitants slowly getting warmed up (stretching and stuff? Memory becomes diffuse ...) another thought lumbered in: "If this is post Y2K stuff, will you even be able to understand it???"


steampunk stēm′pŭngk″​
n.
Science fiction set in an alternate version of the historic past, especially 19th-century England, and involving advanced technologies usually based on steam power.
n.
An aesthetic style inspired by steampunk fiction.
n.
A subgenre of speculative science fiction set in an anachronistic 19th century society.



CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Mar 11, 2021)

It's similar to Victorian Science Fiction, a related genre.Both play with alternate technologies. You can usually recognize them by the ladies' fashions; in VSF, they wear corsets:


In Steampunk, they wear them on the outside:


Both genres tend to be gear-heavy, but Steampunk gets a bit carried away with it, as explained in this song:


----------



## Alcuin (Mar 11, 2021)

An entire website of Steampunk:


----------



## grendel (Mar 11, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> My first reaction to this post was "can you please define 'steampunk' for an old, out-of date fart?"


Good Lord Olorgando, even I know what steampunk is! You ARE old!


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 12, 2021)

grendel said:


> Good Lord Olorgando, even I know what steampunk is! You ARE old!


Well, I'm younger than S-eS. Might have more to do with when steampunk became mainstream, or at least was noticed, or whatever.
I've probably mentioned that my film and TV viewing nosedived steeply roughly around Y2K.
So if steampunk emerged after that, it's no wonder I hadn't heard the term before.

As S-eS mentions VSF:

"_The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_" from 2003, starring Sean Connery in his final live-action acting role (which I have on DVD), plays right at the end of the Victorian Era, in 1899. I suppose this falls more into the category of VSF than steampunk?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Mar 12, 2021)

I have a copy somewhere, but haven't watched it; from the reviews, it seems it could be placed in the category of Steam_junk_, or Very Sad Filmmaking.


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 12, 2021)

I found it amusing, which more than I can say for the great mass of stuff Holly-, Bolly- and perhaps other -woods have perpetrated for the last two decades.


----------



## 1stvermont (Mar 12, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> Basically, I was thinking about Tolkien, and realized that his experiences may explain general (though not universal) avoidance of gunpowder weapons in high fantasy:
> 
> gunpowder opened the gates for industrial way of war
> gunpowder revolution in 14th and 15th centuries led directly though slowly towards the meatgrinder of Somme
> ...



gunpowder takes away the chivalry aspect of war imo.


----------



## grendel (Mar 12, 2021)

The Robert Downey Sherlock Holmes films have _kind of_ a steampunk feel, even though they're not publicized as such. Or maybe they're just VSF, as Olorgando notes. I think the old _Wild, Wild West _TV show was also steam-punkish, even before there was such a thing.


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 13, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> gunpowder takes away the chivalry aspect of war imo.


"Chivalry" in war must be one of the pernicious myths of humanity. No such thing. Perhaps the odd perfunctory nod in the direction by the self-styled "nobility" making up the command structures for millennia, but no more. The "grunts" of all ages would certainly have scoffed at the idea, assuming they knew of it at all.

With perhaps just one exception: the highly unofficial "Christmas truce" of 1914 on the Western Front. When the "grunts" may have perceived that they were fighting the the most senseless and unnecessary war in human history. The parasitic "nobility" so dominant in the command structure (and among the non-combatant ruling class) were having none of this, as they probably perceived "matters of honour" to be involved by then (another concept abused by a class that had so little of it in actual life).

But the increasing importance of gunpowder is a very late development in this supposed decline of "chivalry".
Bows (most noted historically in western Europe perhaps being the Welsh-derived English longbows) were also looked down on disdainfully by the parasite class (leading to a serious reduction of that class of France in the battles of Crécy in 1346 and Azincourt (misspelled Agincourt by the Brits - they never were any good at foreign languages; there actually is an Agincourt in north-eastern France in the Moselle region bordering on Germany, far away from the misnamed battle) in 1415, though both left far too many of the parasites alive). The cross-bow was viewed even more dimly, to the point (IIRC) that some "Christian" rulers, forces, whatever, vowed not to use them on each other, but only on "unbelievers" (the French deployed them at Crécy nonetheless, but they were routed by the English and Welsh longbowmen).

But again, there are various classes of "distance weapons" to be used by a single soldier (so we're not talking about cannon, trebuchets, catapults and the like here). The oldest what we would term "javelins" are estimated to be about 400,000 years old and so to predate the Neanderthals in Europe, but were probably mainly used in big-game hunting. Then, in a scene to be found in the 1981 Canadian-French film "_Quest for Fire_", the spear-throwing stick or "atlatl" projectiles have superior range to the hand-thrown javelins of another group. Similar would be the advantage of those using slings of any kind had over those who threw simply by hand (who would be looked down on by the "wrestling-only" set of hulking, slow brutes).

And what about lances and pikes? They also tend to prevent the very "chivalrous" hacking each other to pieces at hand-to-hand range - but wait! what about swords?!? Which brings me to the truly great 1968 film "_2001: A Space Odyssey_", in which the first glimmering of "intelligence" instilled in a group of Australopithecus, or at least their leader, by that monolith on Earth was to use (IIRC) the thighbone of some big critter they had eaten. When they then meet another group, leading to the traditional ritualized display (bragging) just out of grappling range - when our "hero" uses his unfairly, artificially elongated arm, with that much harder fist-equivalent at the end, to bash in the opponent's cranium. Not chivalrous.

(The monolith's dubious first "intelligence doping" would, on the other hand, explain basically all of human history ...)


----------



## 1stvermont (Mar 13, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> "Chivalry" in war must be one of the pernicious myths of humanity. No such thing. Perhaps the odd perfunctory nod in the direction by the self-styled "nobility" making up the command structures for millennia, but no more. The "grunts" of all ages would certainly have scoffed at the idea, assuming they knew of it at all.
> 
> With perhaps just one exception: the highly unofficial "Christmas truce" of 1914 on the Western Front. When the "grunts" may have perceived that they were fighting the the most senseless and unnecessary war in human history. The parasitic "nobility" so dominant in the command structure (and among the non-combatant ruling class) were having none of this, as they probably perceived "matters of honour" to be involved by then (another concept abused by a class that had so little of it in actual life).
> 
> ...



I enjoy the effort but disagree with much of said material. I believe chivalry was alive and well and vitally important during feudalism in northwestern Europe. I also agree that is why the long-range weapon of the time was looked down upon and condemned by the church. I think I have mentioned that I am working on a book on this time period, included will be a discussion on modern warfare and a comparison to feudalistic warfare. Discussion on Chivalry will be included. I think you would find much you would disagree with if you were to read it.


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 13, 2021)

1stvermont said:


> I enjoy the effort but disagree with much of said material. I believe chivalry was alive and well and vitally important during feudalism in northwestern Europe. I also agree that is why the long-range weapon of the time was looked down upon and condemned by the church. I think I have mentioned that I am working on a book on this time period, included will be a discussion on modern warfare and a comparison to feudalistic warfare. Discussion on Chivalry will be included. I think you would find much you would disagree with if you were to read it.


That "the church" would side with the parasite class and its supposed chivalry is not to be wondered. As with the military, the pc had a virtual lock on the positions of hierarchy, at least from abbot / bishop upwards. These were recruited, mostly and naturally enough, from the younger sons, as the elder ones were expected to provide for dynastic continuity. A possible "spare" to the heir might have had his fingers crossed behind his back while paying lip service to the condemnation of all of those unchivalrous weapons. 

And since everyone in European nobility being related to practically everyone else started long before Queen Victoria, the ceaseless (extended) "family squabbles" in cold, hard reality exposed the hypocritical lip service to be practically universal. "Islander" longbowmen vs. "continental" crossbowmen at Crécy in 1346 certainly wasn't the first such incident


----------



## Aldarion (Mar 13, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> "Chivalry" in war must be one of the pernicious myths of humanity. No such thing. Perhaps the odd perfunctory nod in the direction by the self-styled "nobility" making up the command structures for millennia, but no more. The "grunts" of all ages would certainly have scoffed at the idea, assuming they knew of it at all.
> 
> With perhaps just one exception: the highly unofficial "Christmas truce" of 1914 on the Western Front. When the "grunts" may have perceived that they were fighting the the most senseless and unnecessary war in human history. The parasitic "nobility" so dominant in the command structure (and among the non-combatant ruling class) were having none of this, as they probably perceived "matters of honour" to be involved by then (another concept abused by a class that had so little of it in actual life).
> 
> ...


Chivalry in war nonetheless existed for a long time. Combat was often ritualized to such extent that even time and place of the battle would be agreed upon in advance, and rules for treatment of non-combatants are as old as civilization itself - even if they did differ from place to place. Under Roman rules of war, a besieged city would be spared normal looting and raping if it surrendered before the first ram touched the city wall. If it didn't... well, Jerusalem, Alexandria and a number of other cities stand testament to that. In Christian Europe, warfare was even more constrained, to the point that sack of Jerusalem was considered "unbelievable" by the contemporaries - only to be surpassed by the sack of Constantinople in 1204., in consequences if not necessarily in violence.

Bows and crossbows were always utilized, and while the nobility preferred to fight each other face-to-face... it is a fact that neither of these were effective enough, especially in the era of plate armour, to prevent the face-to-face combat from happening regardless of individual preferences. Longbows' main accomplishment was to force the French to dismount. In terms of causing direct casualties it was abysmal, less lethal to the French than French themselves were, trampling as they did over comrades who got stuck in the mud. As for "chivalrous hacking", sword was never the primary weapon. Primary weapon of a knight was a lance, and knights in fact preferred to get another lance when first one broke, to trying to hack each other (or anybody else) to pieces. And in fact sword was a backup weapon - and a secondary backup at that. When lance broke, if you couldn't get another lance, you got a mace or - later - a warhammer. Close-combat infantry meanwhile utilized pikes or pollaxes, or pikes _and_ pollaxes... swords were, for all classes and groups of soldiers on the battlefield, backup weapons, literal sidearms.

What caused the decline of chivalry was urbanization and consequential improvement in financial state of the society as a whole and state specifically, thus leading to increased employment of mercenaries and armies of full-time professional soldiers in lieu of fickle, unreliable and politically volatile nobility. Bows had nothing to do with it, and overall the idea that knights were too chivalrous to think does not hold water. Yes, they were often headstrong, rash and prone to suicidal behaviour. But even then they used the most effective weapons they could get their hands on, and in any case the insanity of average knight is overstated. Hungarian knights as well as Western mercenary knights were highly disciplined, and earlier during Crusades, Byzantines actually noted "Frankish" knights for their battlefield discipline. Byzantines did however also notice knights' _lack of_ discipline away from battlefield, such as when scouting, camping and so on...


----------



## 1stvermont (Mar 13, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> That "the church" would side with the parasite class and its supposed chivalry is not to be wondered. As with the military, the pc had a virtual lock on the positions of hierarchy, at least from abbot / bishop upwards. These were recruited, mostly and naturally enough, from the younger sons, as the elder ones were expected to provide for dynastic continuity. A possible "spare" to the heir might have had his fingers crossed behind his back while paying lip service to the condemnation of all of those unchivalrous weapons.
> 
> And since everyone in European nobility being related to practically. everyone else started long before Queen Victoria, the ceaseless (extended) "family squabbles" in cold, hard reality exposed the hypocritical lip service to be practically universal. "Islander" longbowmen vs. "continental" crossbowmen at Crécy in 1346 certainly wasn't the first such incident



I agree the nobility dominated warfare, and that in many ways led to chivalry and warfare very tame compared to our modern state's version. Democracy and statism have made warfare horrific beyond imaginable. 

I do however agree that many nobles and church members condemned those sorts of weapons, but it made little difference on the field of battle.


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 13, 2021)

Have you heard of, or perhaps read, Jared Diamond's 1997 book "_Guns, Germs, and Steel_"? Some anthropologists do not like it much, but without a doubt the middle factor has played a huge role in warfare through the ages, probably up to the 19th century.

For the longest time, casualties from a whole array of plagues - the ones caused by _Yersinia pestis_ a perennial "favorite" - were far higher than casualties on the battlefield. Cramped living conditions in camps and fortifications combined with iffy at best sanitary conditions were the main reason. Something similar prevented most cities right up to the beginning of the *20th* century from sustaining their populations without immigration into the cities, until sewer systems and safe water supplies were finally effected. Mohenjo-daro and Harappa of the Indus Valley Civilization appear to have had that figured out better over 4,000 years ago (which would, by the way, place them in the late Fourth Age ...  )


----------



## 1stvermont (Mar 13, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Have you heard of, or perhaps read, Jared Diamond's 1997 book "_Guns, Germs, and Steel_"? Some anthropologists do not like it much, but without a doubt the middle factor has played a huge role in warfare through the ages, probably up to the 19th century.
> 
> For the longest time, casualties from a whole array of plagues - the ones caused by _Yersinia pestis_ a perennial "favorite" - were far higher than casualties on the battlefield. Cramped living conditions in camps and fortifications combined with iffy at best sanitary conditions were the main reason. Something similar prevented most cities right up to the beginning of the *20th* century from sustaining their populations without immigration into the cities, until sewer systems and safe water supplies were finally effected. Mohenjo-daro and Harappa of the Indus Valley Civilization appear to have had that figured out better over 4,000 years ago (which would, by the way, place them in the late Fourth Age ...  )



I don't disagree, add to that the massive battlefield slaughter of war between nations [ignoring civilian casualties] and we have a bloodbath. See when feudalism was removed and professional mercenaries and conscripts were added, when warfare became between people of a "nation" rather than the nobles who had to upkeep their own troops, many things changed for the worse. Armies became bigger, killing was more vital, and total war became the norm. 

Under feudalism casualties of disease were not as high since men responded to muster and were not permanent armies as tax payers pay for in more modern wars. The king or lord paid himself and his subjects, it was not politicians taxing others and sending them to war, the lord himself suffered every loss and every day in the field. Thus the armies were small fought limited times and casualties far reduced as every man was important.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Mar 13, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Well, I'm younger than S-eS. Might have more to do with when steampunk became mainstream, or at least was noticed, or whatever.
> I've probably mentioned that my film and TV viewing nosedived steeply roughly around Y2K.
> So if steampunk emerged after that, it's no wonder I hadn't heard the term before.
> 
> ...


There's also a genre of Steampunk that also uses magic and not necessarily is in a 19th century setting, I forget the name but it's what I'm doing.

CL



Aldarion said:


> Chivalry in war nonetheless existed for a long time. Combat was often ritualized to such extent that even time and place of the battle would be agreed upon in advance, and rules for treatment of non-combatants are as old as civilization itself - even if they did differ from place to place. Under Roman rules of war, a besieged city would be spared normal looting and raping if it surrendered before the first ram touched the city wall. If it didn't... well, Jerusalem, Alexandria and a number of other cities stand testament to that. In Christian Europe, warfare was even more constrained, to the point that sack of Jerusalem was considered "unbelievable" by the contemporaries - only to be surpassed by the sack of Constantinople in 1204., in consequences if not necessarily in violence.
> 
> Bows and crossbows were always utilized, and while the nobility preferred to fight each other face-to-face... it is a fact that neither of these were effective enough, especially in the era of plate armour, to prevent the face-to-face combat from happening regardless of individual preferences. Longbows' main accomplishment was to force the French to dismount. In terms of causing direct casualties it was abysmal, less lethal to the French than French themselves were, trampling as they did over comrades who got stuck in the mud. As for "chivalrous hacking", sword was never the primary weapon. Primary weapon of a knight was a lance, and knights in fact preferred to get another lance when first one broke, to trying to hack each other (or anybody else) to pieces. And in fact sword was a backup weapon - and a secondary backup at that. When lance broke, if you couldn't get another lance, you got a mace or - later - a warhammer. Close-combat infantry meanwhile utilized pikes or pollaxes, or pikes _and_ pollaxes... swords were, for all classes and groups of soldiers on the battlefield, backup weapons, literal sidearms.
> 
> What caused the decline of chivalry was urbanization and consequential improvement in financial state of the society as a whole and state specifically, thus leading to increased employment of mercenaries and armies of full-time professional soldiers in lieu of fickle, unreliable and politically volatile nobility. Bows had nothing to do with it, and overall the idea that knights were too chivalrous to think does not hold water. Yes, they were often headstrong, rash and prone to suicidal behaviour. But even then they used the most effective weapons they could get their hands on, and in any case the insanity of average knight is overstated. Hungarian knights as well as Western mercenary knights were highly disciplined, and earlier during Crusades, Byzantines actually noted "Frankish" knights for their battlefield discipline. Byzantines did however also notice knights' _lack of_ discipline away from battlefield, such as when scouting, camping and so on...


This reminds me of Shadiversity videos. XD

CL


----------



## Alcuin (Mar 13, 2021)

Returning for a moment to the theme of the opening post, gunpowder was invented in China in the AD 800s (i.e., ninth century). The stuff is a mix of 10% sulfur, 15% carbon (usually charcoal), and 75% saltpeter (potassium nitrate: in olden days derived from urine, in the nineteenth century from guano). Widely used in China beginning from that point forward, it did not appear in Europe until the Mongols used it against the Hungarians at the Battle of Mohi (Sajó River or Tisza River) in AD 1241. The famed English monk and philosopher Roger Bacon (a Doctor of the Church no less, Olorgando) is believed to have discovered a recipe for gunpowder not long after, but kept his recipe secret, presumably because he considered it dangerous; However, Bacon was also a practitioner of alchemy, which in those days was indistinguishable from chemistry (just as astrology was intermixed with and indistinguishable from astronomy), and alchemists normally kept their records and books in what are often described as cryptograms, though really they were in their day no more secretive than a modern chemistry text, though far fewer could interpret them. For instance, the chemistry associated with gunpowder (the original “black powder” version) is
10 KNO3 + 3 S + 8 C → 2 K2CO3 + 3 K2SO4 + 6 CO2 + 5 N2​releasing 3 MJ / kg and providing its own oxidant. Simple if you’ve taken chemistry, entirely obtuse if you’ve not. By the way, 3 MJ / kg is about the energy of a 3-ton vehicle moving at a speed of 160 kilometers per hour (100 miles per hour), so black powder packs quite a punch – and has long been replaced with _far_ more potent chemicals that deliver phenomenally greater wallops.

But gunpowder or something very like it does appear in _The Lord of the Rings_. Its invention, or at least its use at Helm’s Deep, is attributed to Saruman, after Gimli directs the Men of Rohan to stop up the water-gate of the Deeping Stream which the Orcs had used to infiltrate the main wall (_Two Towers_, “Helm’s Deep”):
​[T]here was a crash and a flash of flame and smoke. … [A]gaping hole was blasted in the wall. …​​“Devilry of Saruman!” cried Aragorn. “They have crept in the culvert again while we talked, and they have lit the fire of Orthanc beneath our feet. …”​​Again they used it just after Aragorn addressed the Orcs and Dunlendings from above the ruined gates of the tower, barely missing killing him (_ibid._):
​So great a power and royalty was revealed in Aragorn, as he stood there alone above the ruined gates before the host of his enemies, that many of the wild men paused… But the Orcs laughed with loud voices; and a hail of darts and arrows whistled over the wall, as Aragorn leaped down.​​There was a roar and a blast of fire. The archway of the gate above which he had stood a moment before crumbled and crashed in smoke and dust. The barricade was scattered as if by a thunderbolt. …​
As for _chivalry_, yes, it was and still is (to some extent) practiced in our real world. It is best to regard chivalry in its proper context: even today, diplomats are treated with deference by civilized folk. (Communist China excepted: they subject even diplomats to anal swabs to test for Wuhan virus: an act of dominance, I believe.) Even in war, diplomats are typically extended safe passage through enemy lines, and while an enemy embassy compound might be occupied during war, afterwards the personal property of individual diplomats is (sometimes) returned. The encounter between the Captains of the West and the Mouth of Sauron is exemplary: Even though the Mouth of Sauron acts with arrogance and contempt toward his counterparts, both they and he and his entourage still obey the ancient rules of diplomacy. Counter-examples would include Vlad the Impaler of Transylvania (i.e, Dracula), who when ambassadors of the Ottomans refused to remove their hats in his presence had them nailed to their heads.

In more modern times, Soviet Marshal Chuikov hosted a banquet for his prominent Nazi German prisoners (i.e., those who did not commit suicide) the evening of their surrender in Berlin; afterwards, they were arrested and taken into captivity. Chuikov was apparently possessed of an excellent ironic sense of humor: this deleted scene from _Der Untergang_ depicting the meeting of General Krebs and Chuikov is worth three minutes, and is also a further demonstration of diplomatic niceties between the commanders of combatant armies even in the worst conditions of recent wars. Not all armies or commanders respect these rules, but they are, if you will, the modern version of _chivalry_.




Such courtesies are, of course, rarely extended amongst soldiers in combat, though after combat, _civilized_ people extend such mercy as they can to captured and especially wounded enemies. The Christmas Truce of 1914 is a superb example of decency among common soldiers – truly _Christian charity_, Olorgando – and an horrific episode of the masters of war demanding that their soldiers pursue a senseless war with cold-blooded ruthlessness. In the Middle Ages, while captured noblemen were held in reasonable comfort in expectation of ransom, commoners could expect to be murdered upon capture. (Compare the mercy of Erkenbrand of Westfold toward the Dunlendings who surrendered after the Battle of Helm’s Deep: their lives were spared, and after working to bury the dead and repair damage to the fortress, they were allowed to return home.) The scene from Henry V and the Herald of France is a fair example: Montjoy, the Herald of the Dauphin, offers King Henry ransom and return to England, but King Harry replies,
​I pray thee, bear my former answer back:​Bid them achieve me and then sell my bones.​Good God! why should they mock poor fellows thus?​​“Why should they mock poor fellows thus?” is a reference to the notion that all common Englishmen could expect to be murdered by the French once their noblemen surrendered; at Agincourt, all the French prisoners were executed, _including the noblemen_: a violation of chivalry indeed, but also revenge for the slaughter of the English boys in the baggage train. (I have heard that more boys were killed than soldiers among the English.) (The exchange between Henry V and the Herald Montjoy begins at 3:30.)


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 14, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> “Why should they mock poor fellows thus?” is a reference to the notion that all common Englishmen could expect to be murdered by the French once their noblemen surrendered; at Agincourt, all the French prisoners were executed, _including the noblemen_: a violation of chivalry indeed, but also revenge for the slaughter of the English boys in the baggage train.


As you mention Agincourt: both this battle in 1415 and Crécy in 1346 were part of the somewhat misnamed "Hundred Years' War", actually taking place from 1337 to 1453 (and another family spat, between the ruling houses of England and France of the time, that went out of control). There was not much chivalry in this intermittent conflict. To quote Stephen Clarke from his (mostly) amusing 2010 book "1000 Years of Annoying the French":

"... apart from a few outbreaks of chivalrous combat, the 'war' was quite simply 120-odd years of terror inflicted on French civilians by gangs of out-of-control English bandits, claiming to defend their king's rights but actually hard at work enriching themselves and massacring as many people as they could in the process."

(The French did some reciprocal raiding). Sounds like a page from the Viking "pillage" handbook ...


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Mar 14, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> "Hundred Years' War", actually taking place from 1337 to 1453 (and another family spat, between the ruling houses of England and France of the time, that went out of control). There was not much chivalry in this intermittent conflict.


Until St. Joan showed up and FORCED the French Army to be holy and chivalrous.



CL


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 14, 2021)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Until St. Joan showed up and FORCED the French Army to be holy and chivalrous.
> CL


If that's your take on it, the you'd better stay well away from the Stephen Clarke book I mentioned above.
Right after the chapter 3 on the HYW that I quoted from above, he tackles the subject of Joan of Arc in the next chapter.
That is *not* a pretty picture of the French nobility or royalty, their behavior in this matter.
(Things don't get much better in the rest of the book; the British side also takes some lumps, but then since 1066 their descent is mostly Norman French ...)


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Mar 14, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> If that's your take on it, the you'd better stay well away from the Stephen Clarke book I mentioned above.
> Right after the chapter 3 on the HYW that I quoted from above, he tackles the subject of Joan of Arc in the next chapter.
> That is *not* a pretty picture of the French nobility or royalty, their behavior in this matter.
> (Things don't get much better in the rest of the book; the British side also takes some lumps, but then since 1066 their descent is mostly Norman French ...)


I didn't say the nobility, which forsook her, I meant a 17 year old Catholic Peasant.
-_-


CL


----------



## Elthir (Mar 15, 2021)

*Jehanne la Pucelle!*

Tolkien must have had some opinion about her, but I can't recall any, at the moment 🐾


----------



## Shadow (Mar 23, 2021)

The Hobbit, Chapter IV, Over Hill and Under Hill:

"It had wakened him up wide in a splintered second, and when goblins came to grab him, there was a terrific flash like lightning in the cave, a smell like gunpowder, and several of them fell dead."


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 23, 2021)

Shadow said:


> The Hobbit, Chapter IV, Over Hill and Under Hill:
> 
> "It had wakened him up wide in a splintered second, and when goblins came to grab him, there was a terrific flash like lightning in the cave, a smell like gunpowder, and several of them fell dead."


True, but Tom Shippey has pointed out that in TH, JRRT used terms familiar to his assumed readers in his faculty as narrator. This is not to imply that such things actually existed in Middle-earth.

Case in point? The very first chapter of TH, "An Unexpected Party":

"At _may never return_ [_Bilbo_] began to feel a shriek coming up inside, and very soon it burst out like *the whistle of an engine coming out of a tunnel*."

Add to that the clock on the mantle-piece under which Gandalf left his message to Bilbo, the mail arriving twice a day (now a defunct service), Lobelia's umbrella in LoTR ...


----------



## Elthir (Mar 23, 2021)

And just to add (and generally speaking), in any case, arguable examples of simile (like, as) are different from examples of more "regular" description.

For example if a fairy uses magic to open a mushroom "like an umbrella" then we don't need to imagine umbrellas (necessarily) existing in whatever world this description/tale is from. Not from that example alone anyway. For me, Lobelia's umbrella is a different type of example, whatever one might argue beyond that, about "umbrellas" in Middle-earth.

And not that anyone said otherwise!


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Apr 2, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> gunpowder opened the gates for industrial way of war
> gunpowder revolution in 14th and 15th centuries led directly though slowly towards the meatgrinder of Somme


Strictly speaking, shouldn't it be the industrial age-mass production opened the meatgrinder and industrial way of war?After all, gunpowder's kill-count would rely on the ammunition. China's industrial way of war hasn't been opened for at least 10 centuries since gunpowder's invention in military use till 19th century mid period.


Aldarion said:


> _of_ discipline away from battlefield, such as when scouting, camping and so on...


Well...Teutonic Order and Malta's Order would propose against this XDDD. Yeah, knights in Middle age of western EU, had no enough affordable logistic system, most of the times.


----------



## Halasían (Apr 3, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> My first reaction to this post was "can you please define 'steampunk' for an old, out-of date fart?"
> 
> Then slowly a second thought crept in (yes, unfortunately the neurons aren't as lithe as they used to be): "do I really need to know this?"
> 
> After that, with the cranium-inhabitants slowly getting warmed up (stretching and stuff? Memory becomes diffuse ...) another thought lumbered in: "If this is post Y2K stuff, will you even be able to understand it???"


Gandolorian, did you ever get to the 'Google' stage on your tower? You would have had your answer in the time it took you to write a sentence of this. 


And wasn't the whole 'gunpowder' thing in Lord of the Rings a PJ fanficcy part? I know this was discussed somewhere here...


----------



## m4r35n357 (Apr 3, 2021)

Maybe it is more to do with the damage to structures rather than slaughter of people/beings


----------



## Aldarion (Apr 3, 2021)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Strictly speaking, shouldn't it be the industrial age-mass production opened the meatgrinder and industrial way of war?After all, gunpowder's kill-count would rely on the ammunition. China's industrial way of war hasn't been opened for at least 10 centuries since gunpowder's invention in military use till 19th century mid period.


In West, two are intimately connected. Cannon foundries and gunpowder foundries were probably first "modern" weapons industries, operated by the state as opposed to private factors. I wrote about it for Mythic Scribes:





Fantasy Fortifications — Part 1: Strategy


How the frequency and nature of fortifications depends on political and strategic outlook.




mythicscribes.com









Fantasy Fortifications — Part 3: Design


The design of a fortification depends on its purpose and on the threats it is expected to face.




mythicscribes.com






Hisoka Morrow said:


> Well...Teutonic Order and Malta's Order would propose against this XDDD. Yeah, knights in Middle age of western EU, had no enough affordable logistic system, most of the times.


Hungarian armies also tended to be disciplined, thanks to often facing nomads. Suffice to say, French knights horrified them - and not in a good way.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 3, 2021)

Halasían said:


> Gandolorian, did you ever get to the 'Google' stage on your tower? You would have had your answer in the time it took you to write a sentence of this.
> And wasn't the whole 'gunpowder' thing in Lord of the Rings a PJ fanficcy part? I know this was discussed somewhere here...


You must have missed my post where I clearly stated that I stay away from *anti*-social media and KGB / STASI clones.
That I now occasionally trawl around in YouTube to find music clip links is 100% the fault of our member from Virginia. 

Making what was used to blast the culvert (and thus the Deeping Wall above it) look very much like gunpowder is certainly a PJ addition (he seems to have a severe allergy to ambiguity). In the TT chapter "Helm's Deep" the text is as follows:

"Even as they spoke there came a blast of trumpets. Then there was a crash and a flash of flame and smoke. The waters of the Deeping-stream, poured out hissing and foaming: they were choked no longer [_the culvert had been blocked, as it allowed the passage at least of Orcs_], a gaping hole was blasted in the wall.A host of dark shapes poured in.
'Devilry of Saruman!' cried Aragorn. 'They have crept in the culvert again, while we talked, and they have lit the *fire* of Orthanc beneath our feet.'"


----------



## Aldarion (Apr 3, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> You must have missed my post where I clearly stated that I stay away from *anti*-social media and KGB / STASI clones.
> That I now occasionally trawl around in YouTube to find music clip links is 100% the fault of our member from Virginia.
> 
> *Making what was used to blast the culvert (and thus the Deeping Wall above it) look very much like gunpowder is certainly a PJ addition* (he seems to have a severe allergy to ambiguity). In the TT chapter "Helm's Deep" the text is as follows:
> ...


I have to disagree here: it is not a PJ "addition", though it could be "interpretation". Effects of gunpowder can certainly be described as "fire", and Tolkien wrote in the _Hobbit_ that Goblins (which is to say, Orcs) did, in fact, invent gunpowder as well as "other inventions which plagued the world for the times to come" (or something to that effect).


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 4, 2021)

And you left out another quote from Aragorn, Mr. O:

'But the Orcs have brought a devilry from Orthanc,' said Aragorn. 'They have a _blasting fire, _and with it they took the Wall' ( emphasis mine).

That certainly sounds like an explosive of some kind, rather than a "spell" or something.

Plus, there's a similar use at the Siege of Minas Tirith. I'm too lazy to look it up, but it was discussed on an older thread.

The "Olympic Torch-bearer" definitely _was _a PJ invention, however. 😂


----------



## Aldarion (Apr 4, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Plus, there's a similar use at the Siege of Minas Tirith. I'm too lazy to look it up, but it was discussed on an older thread.


Blasting fire is mentioned when orcs are taking down the Rammas Echor. Description makes it sound a lot like gunpowder, too.

EDIT: found it while looking for reference:








Is There Gunpowder in Middle-earth?


Q: Is There Gunpowder in Middle-earth? ANSWER: Yes, there is gunpowder in Middle-earth. It’s more implied than explicitly stated. For example, in The Hobbit, the scene where the goblins (orcs…



middle-earth.xenite.org


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 4, 2021)

You might want to check your link there, Aldarion.

Here's the thread I was thinking of. You can find the Rammas Echor quote buried in the silliness:









About firearms


JRRT always describe military weapons in obscure ways, apart from weapons for single combat like cold steel. Yet I found some proof that JRRT allowed firearms to make their appearance. For example, in the siege of Minas-Tirith, JRRT has mentioned that bombardment has taken a heavy roles for...




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 4, 2021)

I oppose PJ's explicit depiction of what was to be used at Helm's Deep as resembling gunpowder to a degree that no ambiguities remain.

See above my snarl "(he seems to have a severe allergy to ambiguity)".

I never mentioned "spell" anywhere; this would be W-k at the gates of Minas Tirith.

The scene I gripe about is chapter 28 of the cinematic version, where Gríma and Saruman are in Orthanc, Saruman adding the last grains of what is obviously gunpowder into a sort of huge, fat amphora, while Gríma approaches holding a candle. Something that's a very bad idea around a large amount of gunpowder, so Saruman stops Gríma from getting any closer. And btw, PJ gives Gríma an utterly moronic line to say, at least in the light of recent history:

"How can fire reduce stone?"

Even up to the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, a standard procedure by attackers was to dig tunnels reaching underneath the foundations of the city walls, and the lighting fires (not explosives!) there. Yes, stuff like stone, concrete, never mind metals (brick seems to be more resistant) can be seriously weakened by such fires, causing walls to collapse - bad thing for the defenders.

Immediately after this scene is the one where Saruman reveals to Gríma the force he has assembled - which Gríma apparently had thought impossible ("there is no such force"), and then a tear runs down Gríma's cheek ... 💩


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 4, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> I never mentioned "spell" anywhere


My remark wasn't directed at you, Olorgando -- or anyone in particular; just a general observation. Ascribing various things to "spells" or "magic" seems to be something of a default setting in fantasy, including Tolkien. I recall someone here saying Elves probably wouldn't need to wash dishes, as they could just "magic" them clean.


----------



## Alcuin (Apr 4, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Ascribing various things to "spells" or "magic" seems to be something of a default setting in fantasy, including Tolkien. I recall someone here saying Elves probably wouldn't need to wash dishes, as they could just "magic" them clean.


“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”― Arthur C. Clarke, _Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry Into the Limits of the Possible_​My dishwasher is magic!


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 4, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> My dishwasher is magic!


Can't say much about our dishwasher. My wife only allows me to open the water supply to it, pop in that multi-colored tab into the receptacle, and push the "start" button. That *tab*, on the other hand, might qualify ...


----------



## Starbrow (Apr 6, 2021)

Based on the description of the fireworks at Bilbo's and Frodo's birthday party, I think they used gunpowder. Since they were designed and made by Gandalf, they may have been done by magic. However, he also distributed "squibs, crackers, backarappers, sparklers, torches, dwarf-candles, elf-fountains, goblin-barkers, and thunder-claps" to the hobbits. Since the hobbits could set them off on their own, I assume they had something explosive, like gunpowder, in them. The names also bring to mind the fireworks we have nowadays.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Apr 13, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> French knights horrified them - and not in a g


Oh yeah, French people have been always...romantic XDDDD


----------



## Aldarion (May 1, 2021)




----------



## m4r35n357 (May 1, 2021)

Aldarion said:


>


Orcs invented gunpowder (0:31) ? Discuss!


----------



## Aldarion (May 1, 2021)

m4r35n357 said:


> Orcs invented gunpowder (0:31) ? Discuss!


It is written in Hobbit, IIRC, but presented as a speculation.


----------



## Olorgando (May 1, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> m4r35n357 said:
> 
> 
> > Orcs invented gunpowder (0:31) ? Discuss!
> ...


Phew! I'm extremely leery of including much, if anything, from TH by itself as canon. Especially JRRT's narrator's intrusions into the story ...
What was was later incorporated into LoTR about the quest to the Lonely Mountain as history, yes, but that children's tale (one of those one can still read with enjoyment well after childhood!) continues to fit only uneasily into the M-e legendarium..


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (May 2, 2021)

Aldarion said:


>


Without doubt, the kill ration between Free People always emerged like Super Power SF VS undeveloped country's exp gift package XD. One more doubtful thing was that what's the style of "Evil Men", no matter they're Easterling, Harrad, or even Umbar, and so on. The "Evil Men" military standard, at least personnel quality, was much more superior than orcs(It's another matter on the aspect of hardware for too little mention of Evil Men's heavy firepower). I wonder military product of "Evil Men" usually went as Free People's elitism, or Orcish expandable style.


----------



## Goku da Silva (Nov 20, 2021)

Pretty simple my friend, in the high fantasy genre there is virtualy no tecnological development, take the world Tolkien created, over many thousands of years those races remain basically a medieval society.


----------



## 1stvermont (Nov 20, 2021)

Goku da Silva said:


> Pretty simple my friend, in the high fantasy genre there is virtualy no tecnological development, take the world Tolkien created, over many thousands of years those races remain basically a medieval society.


Saruman?


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 20, 2021)

Goku da Silva said:


> Pretty simple my friend, in the high fantasy genre there is virtualy no tecnological development, take the world Tolkien created, over many thousands of years those races remain basically a medieval society.





1stvermont said:


> Saruman?


My thought, too.
And as to medieval, at least as it is (used to be?) defined by European historians for Europe: the thousand years between the demise of the (remnants of the) western Roman Empire, just before 500 AD, and the "discovery" of the Americas just before 1500 AD, gunpowder certainly was in use in the last phase.


----------

