What was the closest real world equivalent to the Rohirrim?
Was there one at all?
They seem to be based partially on the Anglo-Saxons, but the Anglo-Saxons didn't use cavalry much as far as I know. Perhaps the Goths are a more accurate comparison?
Where there any early-middle age European societies that relied heavily or primarily on light-to-medium cavalry? Not counting Iranian and Eurasian steppe peoples, as the Rohirrim are clearly more northern or western European or Nordic in appearance.
Additionally, were there any particular middle age societies that relied on cavalry that primarily used missile weapons (such as javelins), spears (rather than actual couched lances) and, to a lesser extent, swords primarily from horseback?
>>554711
There is no Western equivalent, or at least not anything that could be pointed to as a direct influence.
If you look East, you're far more likely to see similarities, but many of them come later than the early Middle Ages.
>>554711
Most of the Germanic tribes that wandered used heavy cavalry as the basis of their fighting forces, but none of them were that effective at charges and doctrine.
Lombards, Vandals and Goths are probably the closest you'll get.
In the movies the Rohirrim have an anglo-saxon appearance. In the movies.
>>554711
Tolkien based Rohan on Mercia, so that's probably it.
>>554711
Non of the Germanic tribes had the Steppe-Tier level of cavalry forces featured by the Rohirrim.
>>554711
The Franks relied on a relatively large heavy cavalry in their fights against the Huns and Moors.
What's more, Edoras is reminiscent of a Germanic 'Wallburg', including the large king's hall which houses festivities as it was customs with the Germanics back then.
Just a thought though.
>>554711
Rohirrim are similar to the Varangians who had large cavalry contingents. Saxons rarely used scale mail and the rohirric helmets look norse rather than saxon. No doubt Tolkien would have described them as a mixture of Gothic/Saxon and Norse.
Tolkien hated allegories involving things like history, so there's probably no intentional real world equivalent
During what time period and which cultures actually used spears as their primary cavalry weapon? I suspect most of the mid and high middle ages consisted of heavy cavalry with couched lances, but were spears predominantly used before lances originated? Is there any particular group that could be pointed to as using cavalry spears for charging/routing either before the innovation of or perhaps even when lances became the norm? Lances surely pack a bigger punch on a charge, but they're much worse weapons compared to spears if it comes to melee. So I'm curious about any cultures that successfully used spear cavalry charges successfully.
>>554711
Visigoths and Ostgoths
>>554738
This. The Rohirrim are quite literally Mercians (both call their realm "The Mark") who are given an ostensibly horse culture, except one where the details don't quite match up, prompting the reader to wonder how much of that's being presented is fact and how much of it is unreliable narration/history.
>>554711
The Rohirrim are meant to be Saxons with a horse culture. The LoTR novels were Tolkien's attempt to rationalize his experiences in the trenches of the Great War combined with the fact that he was a huge Saxoboo and Britoboo. A mythologized Arthurian Britain taken several degrees beyond reality.
>>555261
>>555262
>>554711
Tolkien specifically said there was no allegory in any of his cultures, so bear that in mind. The anglo-saxon names, etc. you see for the Rohirrim are used to show the Rohirric language's archaic nature in relation to Westron, represented as modern English, not to make a statement about the culture of Rohan in general.
Autism aside, I would say they are most like the eastern goths, and as some have mentioned they have been related to the Mercians. I've read that they could be described as Mercia in an alt-history timeline where the English won hastings and learned the importance of cavalry. Pure conjecture though.
>>555328
I'll raise your autism with even more of my own.
> I've read that they could be described as Mercia in an alt-history timeline where the English won hastings and learned the importance of cavalry. Pure conjecture though.
The thing is, the Rohirrim "cavalry" is weird and suspect. Especially in a tale which spends quite a bit of time making sure the logistics of travel are gotten right, the Rohirrim move too fast. Their entire army of a "scattered and nomadic" people can pull together in 3 days. They then ride the 306 miles from Dunharrow to Minas Tirith in a week, stopping to detour through some woods, and then fight an all day battle with a LOT of running around and horse charges, and not a single mention of their horses having dropped dead of exhaustion ages ago.
Their description of cavalry tactics is always bare bones, usually just how a charge swept away the orcs or whomever they're fighting. However, you get long loving passages of their fighting on foot, and how they do things like form shield-walls.
Remember, in universe, you're reading a chronicle composed by the hobbits, (mostly Frodo and Bilbo) edited a bunch of times over the next 150 years or so, eventaully sent to Gondor, translated from Westron to the local language, and then translated an unknown number of times before Tolkien got his hands on it and "translated" it into English. What you're reading isn't necessarily "What happened", and the hobbits both have the incentive (the Rohirrim are their closest relatives among men) to tweak things, as well as just plain bloody minded ignorance, since they don't ride themselves, as to what cavalry might be like.
The passages involving the feats of the Rohirrim should be read with a degree of suspicion, and contain flaws that Tolkien deliberately inserted.
>>555344
Underrated post, this is the kind of autism I want to read more of because it's informative
>>554711
There is no equivalent really.
Javelins were used by Bretons and early medieval Franks IIRC. The Bayeux tapestry also shows some javelins being thrown.
Later on in the middle ages Jinettes on the iberian peninsula used javelins.
Hungarians.
As other anons have already said (and probably better than me), Rohan was based on a combination of Mercia with an idealized vision of the Goths. Tolkien had a massive philology-boner for the Goths, because he realized that they must have had an incredibly rich language and culture that had survived only in fragmentary form. He actually wrote a poem in a reconstruction of the Gothic language, and it's the only Gothic poem in existence.
>>554711
It was DEFINITELY the Scythians and other Iranian (Aryan) steppe nomads
>>554711
The Rohirrim are based off of Anglo-Saxons but Tolkien gave them a strong horse culture similar to the Frank's and Normans. Tolkien gave the Rohirrim horse culture similar to the Normans because Norman cavalry was crucial at the Battle of Hastings which is of course a crucial moment in English history.
>>554711
They're basically Anglo-Saxon speaking Goths
>>555391
That's what I've heard but marching from Stamford bridge to Hastings would have blown their horses anyways rendering them useless at hastings.
>>555391
That's not true at all. The Rohirrim are given a very positive portrayal in LotR, whereas Tolkien was a strong believer in the "Norman yoke." He hated the Normans for displacing Anglo-Saxon culture, which he considered nobler and richer.
>>555401
How does that contradict what the other poster said?
>>555403
He says that Tolkien based Rohan partly on the Normans, which he obviously did not
>>555409
That's not what I read.
Tolkien essentially said: Anglo-Saxon culture + horses = Rohirrim
>>555419
>Tolkien gave the Rohirrim horse culture similar to the Normans because Norman cavalry was crucial at the Battle of Hastings which is of course a crucial moment in English history
That's what I'm referring to. Just sayin'
>>555425
>The Rohirrim are based off of Anglo-Saxons but Tolkien gave them a strong horse culture similar to the Frank's and Normans
So we're all clear on this right? Rohirrim is Anglo-Saxons + horses.
Now there is where my comment comes in >>555396
The Anglo-Saxons did actually ride horses to battle all the time but after the long march to Hastings they would have been useless.
>>555429
Yes. I'm not arguing with your interpretation of history, which is correct. I'm just making a statement about Tolkien's motivations.
>>555394
All those infantrymen...
He definitely bases the horse culture on the Scythians
>>555434
We need some guy like him to write some medieval Burgundy fanfic with a fantasy sauce.
.t burgundyboo
>>555439
They aren't anything like Scythians.
They aren't nomadic, they live in villages
They speak a Germanic-inspired language, not an Iranian one.
They don't use bows.
>>555445
>rohirrim
>don't uses bows
Wat
vandals
>>555445
If I recall correctly Eomer´s men used them to hunt down the Orcs.
>>555450
>>555445
Tbqh I think they are a composite of various Aryan horse-riders of the Steppe. If you read the history of Rohan you would see that Rohan was once a region under the rule of Gondor that was overrun with orcs and wildmen, and the men of Gondor were not able to stabilize it. Then from the north came a host of fair-haired riders who crushed the infestation. As a reward, the leader of the riders was given the region to have as an independent kingdom.
>>555344
>The passages involving the feats of the Rohirrim should be read with a degree of suspicion, and contain flaws that Tolkien deliberately inserted.
Spot on. People forget that Tolkien is writing mythology, not a narrative fantasy. What he writes is supposed to be an embellished story, not history.
I mean he talks about Hurin killing 70 trolls alone against an entire army, it's obviously not supposed to be accurate, although the first age is older and subject to even more hyperbole and "mythification" or what ever you want to call it.
>>555386
other Iranian (Aryan) steppe nomads
:))))
>>555445
There were two kinds of Scythians, especially by the 300's-200's BC
-The Nomadshits. But these had a hard life especially with the Sarmatians driving them out of what is now Russia & Ukraine
-The Settledshits. These were cunts who settled along the Cimmerian Bosphorus/Black Sea in coasts in villages and tiny cities. They still had their herds but its within the territory their cities owned.
These cities depended on a large base of agrarian proto-slav farmers whom the Scythians had a protection scheme thing going on in exchange for food.
>>555445
Which means they are not worthy to be associated with the Scythians.
Regardless of what culture or mix of cultures the men of Rohan were based on, I think it's clear that the Rohirrim are way cooler than the boring-ass Gondor men or the mary sue elves.
>>555565
true
>>555565
>Mary-Sue elves.
/tg/ has called they need your help to complain about people having fun
>>554711
The Rohirrim were Tolkien's wet dream of an Anglo-Saxon horse culture.
He dreamt of an England where William the Conqueror was defeated at Hastings and he often theorised that if the English had employed cavalry in their armies instead of pure infantry; William would've been defeated.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohan_(Middle-earth)
>>555700
>The Rohirrim were Tolkien's wet dream of an Anglo-Saxon horse culture.
>He dreamt of an England where William the Conqueror was defeated at Hastings and he often theorised that if the English had employed cavalry in their armies instead of pure infantry; William would've been defeated.
That's a theory by fans and his writings would suggest otherwise.
>>555565
>Regardless of what culture or mix of cultures the men of Rohan were based on, I think it's clear that the Rohirrim are way cooler than the boring-ass Gondor men or the mary sue elves.
In the films, yeah. In the books they were all great
>>555565
Elves are hardly mary sue, ALL elfish kingdoms are slowly falling
>>555344
I don't know weather to demand your sterilization or have your children.
10/10 post
>>555565
>mary-sue
This term is bullshit outside of fanfiction. Sometimes characters are there to fill a narrative role rather than be realistic or believable. The elves in particular are supposed to be a fading ideal, that's their tragedy.
Not Anglo-Saxons. Tribal Saxons.
>>554736
>Most of the Germanic tribes that wandered used heavy cavalry as the basis of their fighting forces
No.
>>555386
wouldn't doubt it desu
>>555565
>mary-sue elves
That's the fucking point
elves are literally better because the gods made them so, but the gods also said ha ha you got to go at the end of the third age
I wish I had the /tg/ screencap about "Is there ever not a time for elves?" "The Fourth Age"
>>559570
>elves are literally better because the gods made them so, but the gods also said ha ha you got to go at the end of the third age
Autist from before. This is wrong. Elves are not better, even in the first age, they're physically weaker than men, even if more agile and hardy, and most of their "magic" and advantages are either rooted in or indistinguishable from their crafting expertise. The Sylvans get their shit pushed in by the orcs all the time, and the Sindar go from being near helpless to crushing Morgoth's maggots almost overnight by the simple introduction of steel weaponry imported from the dwarves.
What really separates the Elves from the Men, especially in the realm of magic is that the elven fea (soul) is tied to the fabric of Arda itself, whereas the human soul isn't. They, far more fundamentally than humans do or can, share in the world's blessings and sorrows. As Morgoth corrupts more and more of the fabric of Arda, as time wears away the fires of creation, as things get more mundane; the elves wane. This happens even to individual elves: Glorfindel is able to fight a Balrog to a draw (mutual death), and then gets reincarnated, which, according to Laws and Customs among the Eldar, is a power boost. Even reincarnated Glorfindel can't take the Nazgul however. You also have one of the drafts about the creation of the Elfstone (Galadriel and Cirdan's tale) which talks about how the second one was crafted more skilfully than the first, but the fires of arda don't burn as brightly anymore and there's less to reflect.
But it's the part of the elves to fail, to fall, and to provide embers for the men to carry on. Stop and think about it; even in the Silmarillion, the pure elves always, ALWAYS lose. Every single time. They might lose and fall in an extraordinarily badass way, but they don't actually do anything to stop Morgoth or hurt him beyond carving up another legion of orc cannon fodder. It's the men, or the partial men who do everything.
>>555071
spears were used before lances, on pic Normans conquering England in 1066
>>555067
How come? He admittedly drew inspiration for his languages from actual ones. And the Anglo-Saxon influence in simply the names of the Rohirrim is undeniable.
>>554711
IDK something part Germanic part Mongol
>>554711
The concept of an army comprising entirely, 100% cavalry (whether it's light or heavy cavalry is irrelevant) is fucking stupid because the logistics become impossible to keep up with. You like triple the amount of food you need to maintain your army, not to mention pay for the maintenance of the men's horses, and suitable terrain for the horses to walk on.
>>560231
Because "allegory" is basically the author telling you what to think.
Tolkien wanted the reader to come up with his own symbolic observations instead.
>>560743
It's myth bro. Doubly so when you remember the descriptiosn of how they're fighting in Rohan itself and you remember that they do a lot more fighting on foot at the Fords of Isen and at Helm's deep than they do on horseback.
>>555344
But yeah, the "Ride of the Rohirrim" is impossible, and Tolkien almost certainly knew it. It wouldn't be the only time he deliberately wrote something that was "wrong".
>>560231
>And the Anglo-Saxon influence in simply the names of the Rohirrim is undeniable.
He used anglo-saxon to show an archaic form of westron (rendered as modern english), it's not supposed to be the actual language of the Rohirrim.
I used to know some more examples but the only one I can remember is this
>English "Hobbit"-> Anglo-Saxon "Holbytla" "Hole builder"
>Westron "Kuduk"-> Rohirric "Kud-dukan"
>>559624
>Elves are not better, even in the first age
Not as a whole, and it depends on which race of elves. The Noldor are usually described as being the best warriors, and any of the Eldar are probably more skilled than your average man. The elves always because of their shitty fate, not necessarily because of a lack of personal prowess.
>>560832
>The Noldor are usually described as being the best warriors,
The Noldor are also the best smiths, gifted with knowledge of metalworking from Aule himself.
> and any of the Eldar are probably more skilled than your average man.
If this was the case, then why was Ulfang's treachery at Nirneath Arnoediad so devastating? Why did all of the Eldar kingdoms leap at the chance to bolster their ranks with Men and it was only after the arrival of Men that they seriously considered trying to take Thangorordrim?
>The elves always because of their shitty fate, not necessarily because of a lack of personal prowess.
And Tolkien hits you over the head with the notion that prowess alone isn't enough to defeat Evil. The defeat of the shadow stems from the heroic choices by small, scared, weak peoples, not by smashing it head on.
>>560861
>then why was Ulfang's treachery at Nirneath Arnoediad so devastating?
I remember reading about how Tolkien wanted to change that. He got uncomfortable on how close the Noldor got to victory at the Nirnaeth.
>>560832
>He used anglo-saxon to show an archaic form of westron (rendered as modern english), it's not supposed to be the actual language of the Rohirrim.
I wonder why he didn't do the same for Adûnaic, though. It was also related to Westron, but he decided to go with the "original" language in the books and we got those terrible late Númenorean king names, that sound like some Mesopotamian king list.
>>554736
>Most of the Germanic tribes that wandered used heavy cavalry as the basis of their fighting forces, but none of them were that effective at charges and doctrine.
Heavy cavalry was more of a medieval thing and most of all a Frankish thing.
Saxons were most of all known to be great swordsmen. During the 9th century they too adopted the Frankish reliance on heavy cavalry.
>>560861
>If this was the case, then why was Ulfang's treachery at Nirneath Arnoediad so devastating? Why did all of the Eldar kingdoms leap at the chance to bolster their ranks with Men and it was only after the arrival of Men that they seriously considered trying to take Thangorordrim?
The Noldor besieged Angband for hundreds of years without men. Tolkien says that Morgoth was afraid when he faced Fingolfin. There's no man who could have done that.
>And Tolkien hits you over the head with the notion that prowess alone isn't enough to defeat Evil. The defeat of the shadow stems from the heroic choices by small, scared, weak peoples, not by smashing it head on.
You're right but you wouldn't say that Frodo is more powerful than Gandalf, for example. I don't know what your man meant when he said the elves are better but I assume he meant prowess.
>>560861
>The defeat of the shadow stems from the heroic choices by small, scared, weak peoples, not by smashing it head on.
Wasn't the army that defeated Morgoth in the War of Wrath composed mostly of vanyar elves aka the most overpowered ones?
I know, they only got there because "small, scared and weak" Earendil dared to ask, but in the end, it was prowess that defeated Morgoth in the end.
>>560922
I believe that's the version presented in Narn i Chîn Húrin. I leave it to people even more autistic than I to decide which is the "real" canonical version, if anything such can be established.
Even so; the major differences are about how Morgoth was more competent in general, tougher. The treachery of Ulfang's men is still a major point and is given as the main cause for the destruction of the eastern force. Morgoth is still concerned about the prowess of his allies afterwards and makes sure they can't multiply too much.
"Even in the first age, the men are tough" still stands in any version of the events.
>>560940
>The Noldor besieged Angband for hundreds of years without men.
Halfheartedly. They never really approach the gates, they never try to assault it. They're happy enough with the status quo, in which Morgoth is mostly penned in but still sends occasional bands of orcs to harass them.
>There's no man who could have done that.
Turin is prophesied to kill him, if you hold the Dagor Dagorath stuff as canon.
>You're right but you wouldn't say that Frodo is more powerful than Gandalf, for example.
Of course not. But very probably more essential, and more heroic, given his lesser stature.
>I don't know what your man meant when he said the elves are better but I assume he meant prowess.
And again, how much of that prowess stuff is accurate? And how much of it is due to what we'd call a technological advantage in modern parlance?
>>560948
>Wasn't the army that defeated Morgoth in the War of Wrath composed mostly of vanyar elves aka the most overpowered ones?
I don't think they ever make the numbers of the Noldor under Finarfin vis a vis the Vanyar clear. And I'm also far from convinced that the Vanyar are tougher than the Noldor. Holy and favored of Manwe is all well and good, but poetry is a poor substitute for a good blade, and the Nodor are the superior crafters.
Besides, the heavy lifting in the War of Wrath was done by the Ainur, not the Elves.
>I know, they only got there because "small, scared and weak" Earendil dared to ask, but in the end, it was prowess that defeated Morgoth in the end.
A prowess that always existed but could never act. The Valar are enormously constrained in what they can do by Illuvatar's order. It's the bringing forth of the holy act that enables the divine power to cast out the devil, if we're talking about the war of wrath.
>>560931
>I wonder why he didn't do the same for Adûnaic, though.
I think the "original" westron names actually came after the English, it could just be one of his inconsistencies. Maybe he had planned to change it.
>>560966
>Turin is prophesied to kill him, if you hold the Dagor Dagorath stuff as canon.
Fair point, though Dagor Dagorath is fairly extraordinary circumstances. Also there's another version where some Maia from Valinor kills him.
>Of course not. But very probably more essential, and more heroic, given his lesser stature.
I agree
>And again, how much of that prowess stuff is accurate? And how much of it is due to what we'd call a technological advantage in modern parlance?
Only Tolkien knows that, we can only comment on what's written really, however inaccurate it is. It's mentioned fairly consistently that elves are more graceful, more deft, hardier and with keener senses. Sometimes men are said to have more physical strength though there are others where this isn't the case.
There are plenty of reasons the elves lose in battle. lack of numbers, in-fighting and plain misfortune all play huge parts.
>>561043
>Also there's another version where some Maia from Valinor kills him.
Eonwe, IIRC; whom in very early versions had a different name and was Manwe's son.
>There are plenty of reasons the elves lose in battle. lack of numbers, in-fighting and plain misfortune all play huge parts.
And I don't disagree with you. In fact, I think what's understated/not often understood is how much Morgoth's foresight and ability to control fate play into the infighting and misfortune.
But I brought up Ulfang for a different reason, and I"m sorry if I wasn't clear about that: The treachery of men and their subsequent tearing the Elven ranks to shreds show that Men, even men who aren't of the Three Houses, can pose a threat to Elves of the first age when they're well led, armed, and trained. It wasn't like they were helpless babes, even then; and in fact, unless you can come up with some theory as to why the Men of the first age would be substantially stronger than the Men of the third, it argues for Elven mythologizing of the battles of the First age, playing up on how badass their ancestors were.
>/his/ knows the history of arda better than that of earth.
Comfy thread
>>561143
>>/his/ knows the history of arda better than that of earth.
>implying the history of Arda isn't the history of earth.
>Men, even men who aren't of the Three Houses, can pose a threat to Elves of the first age when they're well led, armed, and trained. It wasn't like they were helpless babes, even then;
I didn't mean to imply that at all.
and in fact, unless you can come up with some theory as to why the Men of the first age would be substantially stronger than the Men of the third,
There are no direct comparisons between the two but the men of the second age are said to be ennobled by proximity to Valinor and that would imply that the Noldor are even more so ennobled. Even by the third age the Sindarin and especially the nandor are seen as lesser than the Noldor.
>it argues for Elven mythologizing of the battles of the First age, playing up on how badass their ancestors were.
I see what you're getting at regarding mythologisation, and I've no doubt Tolkien had that in mind, but like I said, the mythologies are all we have to work with. I figure that's what the first poster meant when he asked anyway.
>>561216
>implying I don't know arda is earth's ancient history
>implying the earth isn't growing cold
>implying its not happening.
Mind you, the three houses during the 1st age weren't ennobled yet.
