From: Robert Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 03:44:06 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 26 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!rwhelan Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37336 This has been bothering me ever since I heard that the designer of the weapons and armour for Hercules and Xena was hired to do the armour and weapons for the upcoming LOTR film. And I've seen the images, and they just don't cut it. The Hercules/Xena stuff has always looked crude, and something more elegant is needed for Elvish blades. I've seen pictures of Arwen wielding an elvish blade, and now Frodo wielding Sting. Both look like cheap props designed for a garish pulp fantasy cover. Basically I'm optimistic about the film, but what do you all think of this picture of Frodo holding Sting? Doesn't Sting look a like a cheap party prop, rather than an ancient elvish blade? Though in the picture, Frodo is regarding it with the proper respect due an elvish blade...this may ultimately be the more important factor. If the acting is convincing, it can overcome deficiencies in the special effects and props. http://fantasy-scifi.net/jrr_tolkien/pictures/flotr/e_3_800.jpg Also, for more images of Lothlorien.... http://fantasy-scifi.net/jrr_tolkien/filmy/flotr_ex.php -- ###### From: "Matt Thrower" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:12:03 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Lines: 42 Message-ID: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: portal.cramer.co.uk X-Trace: 991127523 reading.news.pipex.net 12250 193.130.83.209 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.seicom.net!news-in.ivm.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37440 "Robert Whelan" wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.0105290322520.13069-100000@amanda.dorsai.org... > > This has been bothering me ever since I heard that the designer of > the weapons and armour for Hercules and Xena was hired to do the > armour and weapons for the upcoming LOTR film. And I've seen the > images, and they just don't cut it. The Hercules/Xena stuff has > always looked crude, and something more elegant is needed for > Elvish blades. I've seen pictures of Arwen wielding an elvish > blade, and now Frodo wielding Sting. Both look like cheap props > designed for a garish pulp fantasy cover. > > Basically I'm optimistic about the film, but what do you all > think of this picture of Frodo holding Sting? Doesn't Sting > look a like a cheap party prop, rather than an ancient elvish > blade? Though in the picture, Frodo is regarding it with the > proper respect due an elvish blade...this may ultimately be > the more important factor. If the acting is convincing, it > can overcome deficiencies in the special effects and props. As a former re-enactor I have a pretty good idea of what makes a sensible weapon and a good way to fight, and I have to say that fantasy films and shows in general have a very poor standard of representing arms and armour. It would appear that Sting (and LotR) is no exception. No weaponsmith in their right mind would make a blade that leafed out at the top in that fashion, and no weaponsmith of any skill would feel the need to make a central rib in the middle as a re-enforcement of the blade. Instead, swords generally taper down to a point and have a grove (called a fuller) down the center in order to make the weapon lighter and for other practiacal and more gory reasons. The grip is far too long for a blade of that size also. > http://fantasy-scifi.net/jrr_tolkien/pictures/flotr/e_3_800.jpg > > Also, for more images of Lothlorien.... > > http://fantasy-scifi.net/jrr_tolkien/filmy/flotr_ex.php > > -- > ###### From: Nicolas Masson Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:37:49 +0200 Organization: Club-Internet (France) Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3B136DED.393DF76F@club-internet.fr> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nas27-56.wms.club-internet.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: front2m.grolier.fr 991128783 24282 213.44.56.56 (29 May 2001 09:33:03 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 May 2001 09:33:03 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: fr Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!grolier!club-internet!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37373 Matt Thrower a écrit : > > The grip is far too long for a blade of that size also. Maybe elves have larger hands than hobbits. Sting is not a hobbit sized sword, but a long elven knife, that can be used as a sword by a hobbit. Perhaps there will be shots in the movie where we can compare Sting to Glamdring and Anduril... -- Nicolas Masson ###### From: Matthias Koch Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:49:06 +0200 Lines: 14 Message-ID: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> References: Reply-To: NNTP-Posting-Host: ras241.med.uni-giessen.de (141.50.254.241) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 991133960 1476914 141.50.254.241 (16 [68960]) X-Posting-Agent: Hamster/1.3.22.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newscore.gigabell.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ras241.med.uni-giessen.DE!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37454 Robert Whelan schrieb: > > Both look like cheap props > designed for a garish pulp fantasy cover. > > Basically I'm optimistic about the film, Me too. But it´s not just the weapons - Gandalf looks like one of those guys that hang out behind the station house... :-( Matthias -- Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/ ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:39:16 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 33 Message-ID: <290520010839167533%zigi@ravenland.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-003.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37388 In article , Robert Whelan wrote: > This has been bothering me ever since I heard that the designer of > the weapons and armour for Hercules and Xena was hired to do the > armour and weapons for the upcoming LOTR film. And I've seen the > images, and they just don't cut it. The Hercules/Xena stuff has > always looked crude, and something more elegant is needed for > Elvish blades. I've seen pictures of Arwen wielding an elvish > blade, and now Frodo wielding Sting. Both look like cheap props > designed for a garish pulp fantasy cover. [snip] Actually, this has been bothering me, and I'm rather glad to know I'm not the only one. I'm finding the stills I've seen of elves in armor especially disappointing--the armor doesn't look realistic or practical, and worse, it reminds me rather of Flash Gordon movies. They could have just stuck with chain mail; I believe Tolkien never mentions plate? And yes, Sting looks pretty clunky to me--not anything like Elvish to my eyes and *very* "bad movie prop"--rather hypertrophic, and I don't care for the swoosh on the blade. Moreover, gosh, that *edge* looks thick and rounded. What were they *thinking*? You're right that acting/directing/scripting are more important than props, but, well, we'll see. zg ###### From: Robert Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:59:10 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <290520010839167533%zigi@ravenland.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <290520010839167533%zigi@ravenland.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newscore.gigabell.net!isdnet!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!rwhelan Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37337 On Tue, 29 May 2001, Pythoness wrote: > > This has been bothering me ever since I heard that the designer of > > the weapons and armour for Hercules and Xena was hired to do the > > armour and weapons for the upcoming LOTR film. And I've seen the > > images, and they just don't cut it. The Hercules/Xena stuff has > > always looked crude, and something more elegant is needed for > > Elvish blades. I've seen pictures of Arwen wielding an elvish > > blade, and now Frodo wielding Sting. Both look like cheap props > > designed for a garish pulp fantasy cover. > They could have just stuck with chain mail; I believe Tolkien never > mentions plate? Well, I'm not a stickler for total accuracy, but the SPIRIT seems to be violated. For example, Boorman's EXCALIBUR has Arthur's knights running around in plate, but it's Beautiful plate. It serves the legend well. But this stuff is...well...crude. It's "heavy metal" style fantasy baroque. (Did you know that Boorman originally wanted to do LOTR, but did EXCALIBUR when the opportunity fell through?) > And yes, Sting looks pretty clunky to me--not anything like Elvish to > my eyes and *very* "bad movie prop"--rather hypertrophic, and I don't > care for the swoosh on the blade. Moreover, gosh, that *edge* looks > thick and rounded. What were they *thinking*? Yeah, it looks more like a spatula than a "sting". Like something Bilbo would have dug trenches with, rather than "stinging" those Mirkwood spiders. > You're right that acting/directing/scripting are more important than > props, but, well, we'll see. I'm rather disappointed by the orc armour as well. The thinking seems to be "They are orcs, so their armour has to look like it was cut from tin cans." The orc armour looks horribly impractical, which just doesn't fit the book's descriptions of orcs and goblins as being very clever at creating engines of destruction. I'd guess they'd make simple, practical, though unpretty armour. ###### From: Robert Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:07:41 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE In-Reply-To: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator!feed2.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!rwhelan Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37338 On Tue, 29 May 2001, Matthias Koch wrote: > Robert Whelan schrieb: > >=20 > > Both look like cheap props > > designed for a garish pulp fantasy cover. > >=20 > > Basically I'm optimistic about the film,=20 >=20 > Me too. But it=B4s not just the weapons - Gandalf looks like one of > those guys that hang out behind the station house... :-( I know. I don't like the look of Gandalf either. I don't like his=20 clothes, his hairstyle. He looks cartoony. I'm rather beginning to think that Jackson has blown it rather badly by picking such poor artists for the costumes and creature designs. One of the things that would make this a new "Star Wars" would be the Eye Candy factor. People should enjoy LOOKING at the films at the very least. Star Wars had this, both in the model designs and the locations they were shot in. I really don't see how Jackson is going to turn such an UGLY looking LOTR into a successful franchise. People ought to want to come back to SEE more, even if they aren't immediately sucked into the subtleties of the story.=20 ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:27:01 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 45 Message-ID: <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-002.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37486 In article , Robert Whelan wrote: [snip of original posts] > I know. I don't like the look of Gandalf either. I don't like his > clothes, his hairstyle. He looks cartoony. > The widow's peak in particular, for me. I was really thrilled with the casting of Ian McKellen in the part, though, and I still have some hopes for him. > I'm rather beginning to think that Jackson has blown it rather badly by > picking such poor artists for the costumes and creature designs. One > of the things that would make this a new "Star Wars" would be the > Eye Candy factor. People should enjoy LOOKING at the films at > the very least. Star Wars had this, both in the model designs and > the locations they were shot in. I really don't see how Jackson is > going to turn such an UGLY looking LOTR into a successful franchise. > People ought to want to come back to SEE more, even if they aren't > immediately sucked into the subtleties of the story. I suspect PJ thinks he's giving people what they want/expect, and I imagine he's right in a large number of cases--a lot of folks around here are very happy with the "look." I'm not --it doesn't look right or classy to me in many of the stills and brief trailers I've seen, but it's personal taste, and I accept that, if grumpily. :-) And I think *practical* (to respond to your other post) is exactly what's missing in the armor--it doesn't look functional, and it's a sticking point for me (I like arms & armor). I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, which is a clue to its impracticality. Why not have someone who is really an arms designer do some work here instead of the Xena and artist group? Unfortunately there are a number of sticking points for me (Frodo *being* young, evidently, rather than just *looking* young is one, for example), though I am expecting some pretty spectacular SFX. zg ###### Lines: 7 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: normalgabe@aol.com (NormalGaBe) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 29 May 2001 20:59:28 GMT References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37490 >Instead, swords >generally taper down to a point and have a grove (called a fuller) Would that fuller also be known as a blood gutter? gabe ###### From: Robert Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:48:41 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!deine.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!rwhelan Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37463 On Tue, 29 May 2001, Pythoness wrote: > I suspect PJ thinks he's giving people what they want/expect, and I > imagine he's right in a large number of cases--a lot of folks around > here are very happy with the "look." I guess if Xena, Warrior Princess is their idea of high fantasy... but it still stinks. > I'm not --it doesn't look right or classy to me in many of the > stills and brief trailers I've seen, but it's personal taste, and I > accept that, if grumpily. :-) I'd be happy to see the Xena style on the Orcs. But something, for God's sake, more tasteful for the elves! Something Persian, maybe, with Chinese tai-chi type swords, and Japanese nature-centered embellishments. I always thought Tolkien's own pattern-doodles looked Japanese. > Unfortunately there are a number of sticking points for me (Frodo > *being* young, evidently, rather than just *looking* young is one, for > example), though I am expecting some pretty spectacular SFX. > > zg > -- ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere (John Savard) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <3b145d89.415135@news.powersurfr.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <3B136DED.393DF76F@club-internet.fr> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 15 Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:40:42 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.108.184.50 X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com X-Trace: news-rep.ab.videon.ca 991190367 24.108.184.50 (Tue, 29 May 2001 20:39:27 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:39:27 MDT Organization: Videon CableSystems Alberta Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!nntp1.njy.teleglobe.net!teleglobe.net!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!cy2!newsfeed.shawcable.com!news-rep.ab.videon.ca!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37493 On Tue, 29 May 2001 11:37:49 +0200, Nicolas Masson wrote, in part: >Matt Thrower a écrit : >> The grip is far too long for a blade of that size also. >Maybe elves have larger hands than hobbits. >Sting is not a hobbit sized sword, but a long elven knife, that can be >used as a sword by a hobbit. Yes, rather than that blade being too ugly, I would say it is too well-decorated...and too large. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/frhome.htm ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:34:52 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 27 Message-ID: <290520012034528161%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <3B136DED.393DF76F@club-internet.fr> <3b145d89.415135@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-070.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.online.be!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37487 In article <3b145d89.415135@news.powersurfr.com>, John Savard wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2001 11:37:49 +0200, Nicolas Masson > wrote, in part: > >Matt Thrower a écrit : > > >> The grip is far too long for a blade of that size also. > > >Maybe elves have larger hands than hobbits. > >Sting is not a hobbit sized sword, but a long elven knife, that can be > >used as a sword by a hobbit. > > Yes, rather than that blade being too ugly, I would say it is too > well-decorated...and too large. > > John Savard > http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/frhome.htm And it's a good point about the fullers; a blade that size and thickness would be unweildily heavy without them. It just ain't very plausible on a number of levels. The edges look rounded, too, though I suppose that won't show as much in action as in stills. zg ###### From: "Matt Thrower" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:38:36 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: portal.cramer.co.uk X-Trace: 991208317 reading.news.pipex.net 15025 193.130.83.209 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-ulm.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37511 "NormalGaBe" wrote in message news:20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com... > >Instead, swords > >generally taper down to a point and have a grove (called a fuller) > > Would that fuller also be known as a blood gutter? > > > gabe Yes. That's what I meant when I said it had other, gorier uses too :) In full, it allowed blood to drain down the sword, thus stopping the blade getting stuck via vacuum in the bodies of it's victims. ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:30:30 +0100 Lines: 26 Message-ID: <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-79.idaho.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 991215075 32659 62.137.63.79 (30 May 2001 09:31:15 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 May 2001 09:31:15 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37491 "Matt Thrower" wrote in message news:3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net... > > "NormalGaBe" wrote in message > news:20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com... > > >Instead, swords > > >generally taper down to a point and have a grove (called a fuller) > > > > Would that fuller also be known as a blood gutter? > > > > > > gabe > > Yes. That's what I meant when I said it had other, gorier uses too :) > In full, it allowed blood to drain down the sword, thus stopping the blade > getting stuck via vacuum in the bodies of it's victims. Not that old myth again: it's simply a way of making the blade as light as possible. Nothing gory about it. Jamie ###### From: "Matt Thrower" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:44:22 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Lines: 34 Message-ID: <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: portal.cramer.co.uk X-Trace: 991215863 reading.news.pipex.net 15023 193.130.83.209 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewsifeed01.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37510 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Matt Thrower" > wrote in message news:3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net... > > > > "NormalGaBe" wrote in message > > news:20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com... > > > >Instead, swords > > > >generally taper down to a point and have a grove (called a fuller) > > > > > > Would that fuller also be known as a blood gutter? > > > > > > > > > gabe > > > > Yes. That's what I meant when I said it had other, gorier uses too :) > > In full, it allowed blood to drain down the sword, thus stopping the blade > > getting stuck via vacuum in the bodies of it's victims. > > > > Not that old myth again: it's simply a way of making the blade as light as > possible. Nothing gory about it. > > Jamie That's what I pointed out in my original post, and it's what I believe. However, I was under the impression that opinion was divided on the subject? I thought I'd raise both points just to sure. ###### From: "Severian" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 17 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:32:03 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.179.104 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tx.home.com 991233123 65.13.179.104 (Wed, 30 May 2001 07:32:03 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:32:03 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.tx.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37546 > > > Yes. That's what I meant when I said it had other, gorier uses too :) > > > In full, it allowed blood to drain down the sword, thus stopping the > blade > > > getting stuck via vacuum in the bodies of it's victims. > > > > > > > > Not that old myth again: it's simply a way of making the blade as light as > > possible. Nothing gory about it. > > > > Jamie Good point, flesh is rather malleable and would conform around any blood groove ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:46:53 +0100 Lines: 97 Message-ID: <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-234.hawaii.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 991237661 8333 62.137.62.234 (30 May 2001 15:47:41 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 May 2001 15:47:41 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37526 "Matt Thrower" wrote in message news:3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net... > > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in > message news:9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > "Matt Thrower" > > wrote in message news:3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net... > > > > > > "NormalGaBe" wrote in message > > > news:20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com... > > > > >Instead, swords > > > > >generally taper down to a point and have a grove (called a fuller) > > > > > > > > Would that fuller also be known as a blood gutter? > > > > > > > > > > > > gabe > > > > > > Yes. That's what I meant when I said it had other, gorier uses too :) > > > In full, it allowed blood to drain down the sword, thus stopping the > blade > > > getting stuck via vacuum in the bodies of it's victims. > > > > > > > > Not that old myth again: it's simply a way of making the blade as light as > > possible. Nothing gory about it. > > > > Jamie > > That's what I pointed out in my original post, and it's what I believe. > However, I was under the impression that opinion was divided on the subject? > I thought I'd raise both points just to sure. Ah, sorry: I thought you were suggesting that *both* reasons were applicable. There certainly is division over the subject, but as far as I know it divides between those who know about swords and those who don't: anything serious I've ever read about swords and other bladed weapons has always been at pains to discredit the whole notion of a groove allowing the blood to escape for ghoulish reasons. That seems to be a product of Hollywood, more than anything else. For a start, the Roman gladius did not have such a groove, and that was definitely a stabbing weapon: Roman military tactics despised the 'barbarian's warriors who had long-bladed slashing weapons, and preferred to use their shields to block such a blow, and to then use the short sword to disembowel their opponent. It was an extremely effective tactic. Also, a quick flip through a book of swords I have shows no consistency between the type of weapons and which have a fuller: both stabbing and slashing weapons have them, and yet there would be no need for a fuller on a slashing weapon. Also, while some blades have full-length fullers, others stop half-way down the blade: not exactly useful if the aim is to prevent the blade getting stuck. But, if the aim is to make the blade lighter then it makes a lot more sense to the design: after all, although you might only shave a few pounds of the eventual weight of the weapon, those pounds will make all the difference in battle. Re your point: "No weaponsmith in their right mind would make a blade that leafed out at the top in that fashion, and no weaponsmith of any skill would feel the need to make a central rib in the middle as a re-enforcement of the blade." In the same book (Pictorial History of Swords & Bayonets, R J Wilkinson-Latham, 1973) there is a depiction of three Bronze Age leaf-bladed swords, all of which bear an uncanny resemblance to PJs depiction of Sting, with the leafing out at the end. It was a common practice in Bronze Age swords, so those swordsmiths *did* use the design. Of course, they might not have been in their right mind when they did it... ;) I think PJs intention is to give Sting an ancient look, so that it is not similar to the modern weapons later in the book (Rohan's swords for example). So he has assumed that Sting will have the same appearance as the Barrow blades, which are definitely leaf-bladed. I can't remember that Sting was supposed to look like that though: Tolkien only says in The Hobbit that Bilbo chose a knife, but gives no description at all, AFAIK. It is rather ironic that in this case, and also in the case of the winged helmet from another thread, that PJ is getting flack for being ridiculous, even though he has been trying to stick as closely to the text as possible in his designs! He just can't win ;) Jamie ###### Message-ID: <3B153B5F.AF07443B@uchicago.edu> From: Roberto Ullfig Organization: University of Chicago X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 102 NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.0.36 X-Trace: uchinews 991247199 128.135.0.36 (Wed, 30 May 2001 13:26:39 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:26:39 CDT X-SessionID: zXaR6-2503-I4-1831@uchinews X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 5ec66da0 0a1adf8e 584e2662 d3d815a0 b6d5edd3 Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:26:39 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37523 Jamie Armstrong wrote: > > "Matt Thrower" > wrote in message news:3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net... > > > > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in > > message news:9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > > > "Matt Thrower" > > > > wrote in message > news:3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net... > > > > > > > > "NormalGaBe" wrote in message > > > > news:20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com... > > > > > >Instead, swords > > > > > >generally taper down to a point and have a grove (called a fuller) > > > > > > > > > > Would that fuller also be known as a blood gutter? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gabe > > > > > > > > Yes. That's what I meant when I said it had other, gorier uses too :) > > > > In full, it allowed blood to drain down the sword, thus stopping the > > blade > > > > getting stuck via vacuum in the bodies of it's victims. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not that old myth again: it's simply a way of making the blade as light > as > > > possible. Nothing gory about it. > > > > > > Jamie > > > > That's what I pointed out in my original post, and it's what I believe. > > However, I was under the impression that opinion was divided on the > subject? > > I thought I'd raise both points just to sure. > > Ah, sorry: I thought you were suggesting that *both* reasons were > applicable. > > There certainly is division over the subject, but as far as I know it > divides between those who know about swords and those who don't: anything > serious I've ever read about swords and other bladed weapons has always been > at pains to discredit the whole notion of a groove allowing the blood to > escape for ghoulish reasons. That seems to be a product of Hollywood, more > than anything else. > > For a start, the Roman gladius did not have such a groove, and that was > definitely a stabbing weapon: Roman military tactics despised the > 'barbarian's warriors who had long-bladed slashing weapons, and preferred to > use their shields to block such a blow, and to then use the short sword to > disembowel their opponent. It was an extremely effective tactic. > > Also, a quick flip through a book of swords I have shows no consistency > between the type of weapons and which have a fuller: both stabbing and > slashing weapons have them, and yet there would be no need for a fuller on a > slashing weapon. Also, while some blades have full-length fullers, others > stop half-way down the blade: not exactly useful if the aim is to prevent > the blade getting stuck. > > But, if the aim is to make the blade lighter then it makes a lot more sense > to the design: after all, although you might only shave a few pounds of the > eventual weight of the weapon, those pounds will make all the difference in > battle. > > Re your point: > > "No weaponsmith in their right mind would make a blade that leafed out at > the top in that > fashion, and no weaponsmith of any skill would feel the need to make a > central rib in the middle as a re-enforcement of the blade." > > In the same book (Pictorial History of Swords & Bayonets, R J > Wilkinson-Latham, 1973) there is a depiction of three Bronze Age leaf-bladed > swords, all of which bear an uncanny resemblance to PJs depiction of Sting, > with the leafing out at the end. It was a common practice in Bronze Age > swords, so those swordsmiths *did* use the design. Of course, they might not > have been in their right mind when they did it... ;) > > I think PJs intention is to give Sting an ancient look, so that it is not > similar to the modern weapons later in the book (Rohan's swords for > example). So he has assumed that Sting will have the same appearance as the > Barrow blades, which are definitely leaf-bladed. I can't remember that Sting > was supposed to look like that though: Tolkien only says in The Hobbit that > Bilbo chose a knife, but gives no description at all, AFAIK. > > It is rather ironic that in this case, and also in the case of the winged > helmet from another thread, that PJ is getting flack for being ridiculous, > even though he has been trying to stick as closely to the text as possible > in his designs! He just can't win ;) > > Jamie Are the winged helmets actually described in LOTR? I thought they were only described in UT. -- Roberto Ullfig : robo@suba.com ###### From: jsavard@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere (John Savard) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <3b15471e.13243641@news.powersurfr.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <3B136DED.393DF76F@club-internet.fr> <3b145d89.415135@news.powersurfr.com> <290520012034528161%zigi@ravenland.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 12 Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:18:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.108.184.50 X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com X-Trace: news-rep.ab.videon.ca 991250240 24.108.184.50 (Wed, 30 May 2001 13:17:20 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:17:20 MDT Organization: Videon CableSystems Alberta Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!nntp1.njy.teleglobe.net!teleglobe.net!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!cy2!newsfeed.shawcable.com!news-rep.ab.videon.ca!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37536 On Tue, 29 May 2001 20:34:52 -0700, Pythoness wrote, in part: >And it's a good point about the fullers; a blade that size and >thickness would be unweildily heavy without them. It just ain't very >plausible on a number of levels. But if it's a _knife_, not a sword, even if it might look like a (small) sword to a hobbit... John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/frhome.htm ###### From: Robert Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:24:25 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!rwhelan Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37519 On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jamie Armstrong wrote: > Re your point: > > "No weaponsmith in their right mind would make a blade that leafed out at > the top in that > fashion, and no weaponsmith of any skill would feel the need to make a > central rib in the middle as a re-enforcement of the blade." > > In the same book (Pictorial History of Swords & Bayonets, R J > Wilkinson-Latham, 1973) there is a depiction of three Bronze Age leaf-bladed > swords, all of which bear an uncanny resemblance to PJs depiction of Sting, > with the leafing out at the end. It was a common practice in Bronze Age > swords, so those swordsmiths *did* use the design. Of course, they might not > have been in their right mind when they did it... ;) > > I think PJs intention is to give Sting an ancient look, so that it is not > similar to the modern weapons later in the book (Rohan's swords for > example). So he has assumed that Sting will have the same appearance as the > Barrow blades, which are definitely leaf-bladed. I can't remember that Sting > was supposed to look like that though: Tolkien only says in The Hobbit that > Bilbo chose a knife, but gives no description at all, AFAIK. > > It is rather ironic that in this case, and also in the case of the winged > helmet from another thread, that PJ is getting flack for being ridiculous, > even though he has been trying to stick as closely to the text as possible > in his designs! He just can't win ;) Were the barrow blades described as "leaf bladed"? But the barrow blades were made by men. Sting was made by elves. Perhaps Frodo is examining one of the barrow blades in this scene, and it isn't Sting at all. But the empty scabbard at his side suggests it is. ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:00:42 +0100 Lines: 37 Message-ID: <9f3jis$kqv$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <3B153B5F.AF07443B@uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-136.idaho.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 991252892 21343 62.137.63.136 (30 May 2001 20:01:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 May 2001 20:01:32 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37534 "Roberto Ullfig" wrote in message news:3B153B5F.AF07443B@uchicago.edu... > Jamie Armstrong wrote: > > > > It is rather ironic that in this case, and also in the case of the winged > > helmet from another thread, that PJ is getting flack for being ridiculous, > > even though he has been trying to stick as closely to the text as possible > > in his designs! He just can't win ;) > > > > Jamie > > Are the winged helmets actually described in LOTR? I thought > they were only described in UT. > Yes they are: "The Guards... were robed in black, and their helms were of strange shape, high-crowned, with long cheek guards close fitting to the face, and above the cheek-guards were set the wings of sea birds; but the helms gleamed with a flame of silver, for they were indeed wrought of mithril..." (RotK, Minas Tirith) I posted this quote to alt.fan.tolkien, but I guess not everyone reads that group! It was in response to the outcry created by this link posted by o.thomson: http://fantasy-scifi.net/jrr_tolkien/pictures/flotr/flotrfoto137.jpg The thread is called "Balrog Uncovered!!!" if you are interested :) Jamie ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:29:28 +0100 Lines: 58 Message-ID: <9f3opc$752$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-156.hawaii.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news5.svr.pol.co.uk 991258220 7330 62.137.62.156 (30 May 2001 21:30:20 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 May 2001 21:30:20 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37525 "Robert Whelan" wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.0105301520450.18649-100000@amanda.dorsai.org... > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jamie Armstrong wrote: > > > I think PJs intention is to give Sting an ancient look, so that it is not > > similar to the modern weapons later in the book (Rohan's swords for > > example). So he has assumed that Sting will have the same appearance as the > > Barrow blades, which are definitely leaf-bladed. I can't remember that Sting > > was supposed to look like that though: Tolkien only says in The Hobbit that > > Bilbo chose a knife, but gives no description at all, AFAIK. > > > > It is rather ironic that in this case, and also in the case of the winged > > helmet from another thread, that PJ is getting flack for being ridiculous, > > even though he has been trying to stick as closely to the text as possible > > in his designs! He just can't win ;) > > Were the barrow blades described as "leaf bladed"? Yep: "For each of the hobbits he [Tom] chose a dagger, long, leaf-shaped, and keen..." (FotR, Fog on the Barrow-downs) > But the barrow blades > were made by men. Sting was made by elves. > Very true, and that is why I think PJ has probably got Sting wrong. As a slightly related issue, does anyone know what metal the elves used for their swords? I'm wondering if, as with everything else produced by elves, elvish blades are stronger and lighter and generally far superior than the swords of men. Just after that quote I gave above Tolkien says that the knives "...were wrought of some strange metal, light and strong..." It set me to wondering whether the leves had even better metals to use. > Perhaps Frodo is examining one of the barrow blades in this scene, > and it isn't Sting at all. But the empty scabbard at his side > suggests it is. Why? The Barrow-blades had scabbards as well. I suppose it could be one of the Barrow blades, but I think it is supposed to be Sting: look at the background - it looks far more like Imladris than anywhere else :) Jamie ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 31 May 2001 01:01:47 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 56 Message-ID: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 991263707 1492 10.0.3.2 (30 May 2001 23:01:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 May 2001 23:01:47 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37557 "Jamie Armstrong" writes: > "Matt Thrower" > wrote in message news:3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net... > > > > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in > > message news:9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > > > "Matt Thrower" > > > > > > > > > Yes. That's what I meant when I said it had other, gorier uses too :) > > > > In full, it allowed blood to drain down the sword, thus stopping the > > blade > > > > getting stuck via vacuum in the bodies of it's victims. > > Also, a quick flip through a book of swords I have shows no consistency > between the type of weapons and which have a fuller: both stabbing and > slashing weapons have them, and yet there would be no need for a fuller on a > slashing weapon. Also, while some blades have full-length fullers, others > stop half-way down the blade: not exactly useful if the aim is to prevent > the blade getting stuck. Dito an medieval costume/armor/weaponry book I have here. Seems to be pure styling element. > But, if the aim is to make the blade lighter then it makes a lot more sense > to the design: after all, although you might only shave a few pounds of the > eventual weight of the weapon, those pounds will make all the difference in > battle. Looking at the pictures here, I doubt it even reduces metal volume by 5%. So assuming the average weight stated here (1.2kg), we are saving less than 60g. Irrelevant. > "No weaponsmith in their right mind would make a blade that leafed out at > the top in that > fashion, Certainly not neccessary. But most likely no great disadvantage in an dagger. So alowable styling element. Particularly for something elvish. > I think PJs intention is to give Sting an ancient look, so that it is not > similar to the modern weapons later in the book (Rohan's swords for > example). And with elves and leaves... Now them thick edges, they do not fit elvish elegance. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: tbarrie@cs.toronto.edu (Trevor Barrie) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film X-Nntp-Posting-Host: qew.cs.toronto.edu Message-ID: <2001May30.174539.8619@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> Organization: CSLab, University of Toronto References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Date: 30 May 2001 21:45:39 GMT Lines: 6 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!grolier!freenix!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!utnut!utcsri!cs.toronto.edu!tbarrie Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37648 In article , Robert Whelan wrote: >Were the barrow blades described as "leaf bladed"? "Leaf-shaped", yes. ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:49:30 +0100 Lines: 16 Message-ID: <9f3put$ta2$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-156.hawaii.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 991259421 30018 62.137.62.156 (30 May 2001 21:50:21 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 May 2001 21:50:21 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.highwayone.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37606 "Robert Whelan" wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.0105301520450.18649-100000@amanda.dorsai.org... > Perhaps Frodo is examining one of the barrow blades in this scene, > and it isn't Sting at all. But the empty scabbard at his side > suggests it is. You might like to compare this picture of the hobbits holding Barrow blades with the one of Frodo holding the other sword: they are very differnet, really. http://66.37.237.17/images/characters/dhorizons-hobbits.jpg Jamie ###### From: Robert Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:49:47 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9f3put$ta2$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <9f3put$ta2$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!rwhelan Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37559 On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jamie Armstrong wrote: > > "Robert Whelan" wrote in message > news:Pine.GSO.4.21.0105301520450.18649-100000@amanda.dorsai.org... > > Perhaps Frodo is examining one of the barrow blades in this scene, > > and it isn't Sting at all. But the empty scabbard at his side > > suggests it is. > > You might like to compare this picture of the hobbits holding Barrow blades > with the one of Frodo holding the other sword: they are very differnet, > really. > > http://66.37.237.17/images/characters/dhorizons-hobbits.jpg Well, it's seen in darkness, but, if those are the barrow-blades, they are way uglier than Frodo's Sting. I suppose that since the designers are only capable of "ugly" it explains why the orc armour, to make them look good by contrast, is ridiculously hideous. ###### From: Robert Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 20:16:31 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!209.155.233.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!rwhelan Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37558 On Wed, 30 May 2001, Severian wrote: > > > > Yes. That's what I meant when I said it had other, gorier uses too :) > > > > In full, it allowed blood to drain down the sword, thus stopping the > > blade > > > > getting stuck via vacuum in the bodies of it's victims. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not that old myth again: it's simply a way of making the blade as light > as > > > possible. Nothing gory about it. > > > > > > Jamie > > Good point, flesh is rather malleable and would conform around any blood > groove Besides which, any "suction" resistance could be easily foiled by slightly twisting the blade to remove it...which would likely happen naturally anyway, as the insertion and removal of the blad isn't being performed by a precise machine upon a stationary object... ###### From: "Hacky" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:50:49 -0600 Organization: http://www.geocities.com/jhackwith/ Lines: 27 Message-ID: <9f4rau$1l1m$1@news.fsr.net> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: x216126.lew.dialup.fsr.net X-Trace: news.fsr.net 991293598 54326 12.18.216.126 (31 May 2001 07:19:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@fsr.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 07:19:58 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!nntp.wetware.com!attbt1!ip.att.net!news.fsr.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37572 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > Also, while some blades have full-length fullers, others stop half-way down > the blade: not exactly useful if the aim is to prevent the blade getting stuck. A stabbing thrust with most swords does not run the length of the blade; it would take far too long to recover from such a lunge. Just another Hollywood-ized (is that a word) notion that has no bearing in reality. :-) A thrust with most swords reaches the vitals using less than a quarter of the blade; you don't need to stab all the way through. > But, if the aim is to make the blade lighter then it makes a lot more sense > to the design: after all, although you might only shave a few pounds of the > eventual weight of the weapon, those pounds will make all the difference in > battle. Not to mention that having a more solid sword towards the hilt provides the strength needed for an effective block. Hacky ###### From: "Hacky" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:54:45 -0600 Organization: http://www.geocities.com/jhackwith/ Lines: 12 Message-ID: <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: x216126.lew.dialup.fsr.net X-Trace: news.fsr.net 991293599 54326 12.18.216.126 (31 May 2001 07:19:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@fsr.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 07:19:59 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!enews.sgi.com!nntp.wetware.com!attbt1!ip.att.net!news.fsr.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37573 "Pythoness" wrote in message news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, > which is a clue to its impracticality. Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many forms that are. :-) Hacky ###### Lines: 18 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: ottoyuhr@cs.com (Ottoyuhr) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 31 May 2001 03:14:15 GMT References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!surfnet.nl!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37623 Neil Franklin wrote: >> I think PJs intention is to give Sting an ancient look, so that it is not >> similar to the modern weapons later in the book (Rohan's swords for >> example). > >And with elves and leaves... > >Now them thick edges, they do not fit elvish elegance. They also don't fit elvish INTENT TO HURT THINGS WITH THESE SWORDS!! Does Jackson know that a thick edge doesn't cut? Pardon the scream. I just _hate_ impossible armaments. ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 20:47:26 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 16 Message-ID: <300520012047264659%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <3B136DED.393DF76F@club-internet.fr> <3b145d89.415135@news.powersurfr.com> <290520012034528161%zigi@ravenland.com> <3b15471e.13243641@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-019.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37603 In article <3b15471e.13243641@news.powersurfr.com>, John Savard wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2001 20:34:52 -0700, Pythoness > wrote, in part: > > >And it's a good point about the fullers; a blade that size and > >thickness would be unweildily heavy without them. It just ain't very > >plausible on a number of levels. > > But if it's a _knife_, not a sword, even if it might look like a > (small) sword to a hobbit... > But surely it'd be an *awfully* unweildy knife, to begin with. :-\ zg ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:04:52 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 41 Message-ID: <300520012104527531%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <3B153B5F.AF07443B@uchicago.edu> <9f3jis$kqv$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-019.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newscore.gigabell.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37598 In article <9f3jis$kqv$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jamie Armstrong wrote: [snip] > > Are the winged helmets actually described in LOTR? I thought > > they were only described in UT. > > > Yes they are: > > "The Guards... were robed in black, and their helms were of strange shape, > high-crowned, with long cheek guards close fitting to the face, and above > the cheek-guards were set the wings of sea birds; but the helms gleamed with > a flame of silver, for they were indeed wrought of mithril..." (RotK, Minas > Tirith) > > I posted this quote to alt.fan.tolkien, but I guess not everyone reads that > group! It was in response to the outcry created by this link posted by > o.thomson: > > http://fantasy-scifi.net/jrr_tolkien/pictures/flotr/flotrfoto137.jpg > > The thread is called "Balrog Uncovered!!!" if you are interested :) > But the description says "wings of seabirds," which I always took to mean just that--the whole wing of a bird, dried and affixed to the helm. It wouldn't act as a lodge for a spear, for one thing, since it would break away, and it wouldn't be in danger of blowing off in a stiff wind, as the item seen in this illustration obviously is. :-) In any case I never imagined the decoration on those helms to be quite so... exuberant. :-) I guess (?) we don't know if the rara avis in question ever made it onto film (one can hope it didn't) or if it really is meant to be one of the guards of Minas Tirith? It still might end up perched on the pate of someone like Gil-Galad...? Not nearly frightened enough, zg ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:27:38 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 16 Message-ID: <300520012327382799%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9f3opc$752$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-049.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37605 Jamie Armstrong wrote: [snip] > I suppose it could be one of the Barrow blades, but I think it is supposed > to be Sting: look at the background - it looks far more like Imladris than > anywhere else :) > I think the proof is in the marketing: the plastic toy Sting looks a lot like the one in the picture, only the decoration is in bas-relief. Ugh. :-) zg ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:29:05 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 15 Message-ID: <300520012329057984%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <2001May30.174539.8619@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-049.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37604 In article <2001May30.174539.8619@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>, Trevor Barrie wrote: > In article , > Robert Whelan wrote: > > >Were the barrow blades described as "leaf bladed"? > > "Leaf-shaped", yes Which, siiiigh, could mean a *whole* lot of different shapes, given the range of leaves (and ears). It was pointy, though, you may rely on that. zg "I vote for parsley leaves" blum ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 02:46:37 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37643 "Hacky" wrote in message news:9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net... > "Pythoness" wrote in message > news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... > > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, > > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, > > which is a clue to its impracticality. > > Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many forms > that are. :-) > > Hacky > actuly armor is VERRY comfortable, when constructed to fit corectly, and properly padded. ###### Lines: 36 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 31 May 2001 07:57:52 GMT References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010531035752.20402.00002403@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37617 Matt Thrower wrote: >As a former re-enactor I have a pretty good idea of what makes a sensible >weapon and a good way to fight, and I have to say that fantasy films and >shows in general have a very poor standard of representing arms and armour. >It would appear that Sting (and LotR) is no exception. No weaponsmith in >their right mind would make a blade that leafed out at the top in that >fashion, I've seen pictures of several shortswords of precisely this shape. It seems to be a typical design for bronze-age weapons in particular. >and no weaponsmith of any skill would feel the need to make a >central rib in the middle as a re-enforcement of the blade. Instead, swords >generally taper down to a point and have a grove (called a fuller) down the >center in order to make the weapon lighter and for other practiacal and more >gory reasons. You seem to have in mind long slashing weapons, not short thrusting ones. But Sting is a dagger, and they are used primarily for thrusting. Some of the more specialized thrusting-daggers have a diamond shaped cross section, and no edge to the blade, or, to put it another way, the "blade" is all rib until it reaches the sharp point. The "rib" provides stability and rigidity so that the blade does not bend, and possibly break, during a strong thrust against, say, an armoured opponent or a gargantuan spider. Shaving off a smidgen of weight is hardly going to be an important design consideration for a blade that is only 12-15 inches in length and intended for use by some ancient elven superhero. >The grip is far too long for a blade of that size also. As I am sure others have pointed out by now, the grip was not designed for hobbits. -- John Whelan ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:28:35 +0100 Lines: 25 Message-ID: <9f59ug$3h$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <3B136DED.393DF76F@club-internet.fr> <3b145d89.415135@news.powersurfr.com> <290520012034528161%zigi@ravenland.com> <3b15471e.13243641@news.powersurfr.com> <300520012047264659%zigi@ravenland.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-69.hawaii.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 991308560 113 62.137.62.69 (31 May 2001 11:29:20 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 11:29:20 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37582 "Pythoness" wrote in message news:300520012047264659%zigi@ravenland.com... > In article <3b15471e.13243641@news.powersurfr.com>, John Savard > wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 May 2001 20:34:52 -0700, Pythoness > > wrote, in part: > > > > >And it's a good point about the fullers; a blade that size and > > >thickness would be unweildily heavy without them. It just ain't very > > >plausible on a number of levels. > > > > But if it's a _knife_, not a sword, even if it might look like a > > (small) sword to a hobbit... > > > But surely it'd be an *awfully* unweildy knife, to begin with. :-\ > Absolutely. I've always thought of the hobbits knives as being about half the length of those in the film. And Sting is HUGE! Completely the wrong size. Jamie ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:34:39 +0100 Lines: 20 Message-ID: <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-69.hawaii.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 991308924 363 62.137.62.69 (31 May 2001 11:35:24 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 11:35:24 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37586 "Hacky" wrote in message news:9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net... > "Pythoness" wrote in message > news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... > > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, > > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, > > which is a clue to its impracticality. > > Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many forms > that are. :-) > I think the point is that like everything else Elvish armour is superior to human armour, and so should be comfortable to wear. Jamie ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:02:01 +0100 Lines: 20 Message-ID: <9f5bt6$74v$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-69.hawaii.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 991310566 7327 62.137.62.69 (31 May 2001 12:02:46 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 12:02:46 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37590 "Matthias Koch" wrote in message news:3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de... > Robert Whelan schrieb: > > > > Both look like cheap props > > designed for a garish pulp fantasy cover. > > > > Basically I'm optimistic about the film, > > Me too. But it´s not just the weapons - Gandalf looks like one of > those guys that hang out behind the station house... :-( > It's funny: as soon as I saw Ian McKellen in the first teaser I recognised him immediately as Gandalf. I'd never had a mental picture, but it was like he had suddenly slotted into place. Jamie ###### Lines: 18 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 31 May 2001 14:05:53 GMT References: <300520012329057984%zigi@ravenland.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010531100553.12360.00001885@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37616 >> "Leaf-shaped", yes > >Which, siiiigh, could mean a *whole* lot of different shapes, given the >range of leaves (and ears). It was pointy, though, you may rely on >tha It amazes me that some people like to insist that "leaf-shaped" does not mean what it obviously means -- an oval with a pointed tip. This is what is usually thought of as a typical leaf-shape. While it is true that leaves come in many unusual shapes, it is ludicrous to imagine that a maple-leaf is what Tolkien had in mind when he uses the phrase. Tolkien is, after all, trying to communicate, not confuse or mislead or be mysterious. Sting's blade, BTW, is not strictly leaf-shaped, though it does have a leaf-shaped tip. The hobbit-blades at weathertop are pictured as having leaf-shaped blades. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 12 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 31 May 2001 16:21:47 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010531122147.07742.00001881@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!news.stealth.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37629 >Well, it's seen in darkness, but, if those are the barrow-blades, >they are way uglier than Frodo's Sting. Maybe, but they are more-or-less what I would expect a dagger with a leaf-shaped blade to look like. All these blades do look a bit awkward in hobbit hands ... but this, logically, is what one would expect of a blade designed to be a human dagger, rather than a hobbit sword. Perhaps a poniard or stilletto would have looked a mite more elegant as a hobbit sword, but such is not what Tolkien described. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 20 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 31 May 2001 16:55:43 GMT References: <3b145d89.415135@news.powersurfr.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010531125543.07742.00001882@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37631 John Savard wrote: >Yes, rather than that blade being too ugly, I would say it is too >well-decorated...and too large. It does appear a bit larger and bulkier compared to Frodo than I would have imagined. But I think the problem is not that the blade is larger than I imagined, but rather that the HOBBIT is less bulky, with smaller head and hands particularly, than I imagined. I never imagined Hobbits as being precisely proportionately reduced human adults, but rather with proportions more similar to those of children. I would estimate from this picture that the actual blade of the prop in Elijah's hands is only about 22", which arguably meets the criteria for a "short sword", depending on what you consider to be normal sword-length. Scale this down to hobbit size and you have a dagger-blade of 12 to 13 inches. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 16 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 31 May 2001 17:02:15 GMT References: <300520012047264659%zigi@ravenland.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010531130215.07742.00001883@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37627 zg wrote: >> But if it's a _knife_, not a sword, even if it might look like a >> (small) sword to a hobbit... >> >But surely it'd be an *awfully* unweildy knife, to begin with. :-\ I suspect you have not given this much thought. Imagine that blade as being only 13" long, and protruding from your fist, as you prepare to ram it through your opponents leather vest. I think that you will find that it will not be unwieldy at all, and that its sturdy construction would be more reassuring than worrisome in this context. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 16 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 31 May 2001 17:14:07 GMT References: <9f59ug$3h$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010531131407.07742.00001884@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!62.4.16.155.MISMATCH!deine.net!news.stealth.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37630 >> But surely it'd be an *awfully* unweildy knife, to begin with. :-\ >> >Absolutely. I've always thought of the hobbits knives as being about half >the length of those in the film. And Sting is HUGE! Completely the wrong >size. I'm a bit skeptical of these perceptions. Did you really imagine Sting as only six inches in length? I strongly suspect, again, that the problem is not the size of the blade, but the relative lack of bulk (compared to his height) of Frodo. Show me any artist's picture of Sting that you consider more appropriate. I'll wager that it barely any smaller (compared to the height of the hobbit) than the sword pictured here). -- John Whelan ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:38:09 +0100 Lines: 35 Message-ID: <9f5vji$koc$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <9f59ug$3h$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <20010531131407.07742.00001884@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-42.georgia.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 991330738 21260 62.137.61.42 (31 May 2001 17:38:58 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 17:38:58 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!deine.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37607 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010531131407.07742.00001884@ng-fz1.news.cs.com... > >> But surely it'd be an *awfully* unweildy knife, to begin with. :-\ > >> > >Absolutely. I've always thought of the hobbits knives as being about half > >the length of those in the film. And Sting is HUGE! Completely the wrong > >size. > > I'm a bit skeptical of these perceptions. Did you really imagine Sting as only > six inches in length? No: that would not be long enough. I think 12 inches is the absolute maximum length, and preferably 9 or10: it would be long blade for a human knife, but scaled down, it would be the right size for a hobbit short sword. I've done a bit of experitmenting with a tape measure, and imagined how big Sting would be if I were a hobbit: I think that the version Elijah Wood use to provide scale should have been 16-18 inches in length, but as you say, the prop looks more like 22 or even 24 inches long - IMO, it's too long and to wide. This is the only description I can think of referring to Sting: "... Bilbo took a knife in a leather sheath. It would have made only a tiny pocket-knife for a troll, but it was as good as a short sword for the hobbit." (The Hobbit, Roast Mutton) Note that Sting is a short sword even for a hobbit. But the depiction in the still is definitely a full-length hobbit sword, or a human-scale short sword. Jami ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 31 May 2001 22:26:30 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 28 Message-ID: <6u7kyxl0y1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 991340790 373 10.0.3.2 (31 May 2001 20:26:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 20:26:30 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37666 "Hacky" writes: > "Pythoness" wrote in message > news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... > > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, > > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, > > which is a clue to its impracticality. Yes. Real armor was used to fight in. It was designed to not discomfort the wearer, which after all could be deadly. > Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many forms > that are. :-) Nonsense. I can tell you from own[1] and colleages[2] experiences in historical recreation that fitting armor is not uncomfortable. [1] 2 days using borrowed chain mail [2] http://dutzend.discordia.ch/Soeldner/DietrichVonReuenthal.jpg he has also worn chain mail for 3 week-length events -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 31 May 2001 22:32:21 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6u4ru1l0oa.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 991341141 373 10.0.3.2 (31 May 2001 20:32:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 20:32:21 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37667 ottoyuhr@cs.com (Ottoyuhr) writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > >Now them thick edges, they do not fit elvish elegance. > > They also don't fit elvish INTENT TO HURT THINGS WITH THESE > SWORDS!! Does Jackson know that a thick edge doesn't cut? Aparently not. Or he intends them purely for stabbing. But why then so wide, as pointed and gently widening goes in better. Simply bad design. And bronze age is not exactly known for being the most developed technology. > Pardon the scream. I just _hate_ impossible armaments. Dito here. Medieval historical recreationist. Touchy on bad garb or armaments. Even a bad film storywise can be saved by good costumes and props. Bad ones can ruin an otherwise good film. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### From: "Darrell Putnam" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <300520012329057984%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010531100553.12360.00001885@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 3 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:11:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.1.112.158 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tn.home.com 991332696 65.1.112.158 (Thu, 31 May 2001 11:11:36 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:11:36 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.tn.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37801 I say, leaf as in a willow leaf, which is not a bad shaped sword at all. ###### From: ds50.geo@yahoo.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 31 May 2001 11:11:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 15 Message-ID: <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.249.64.25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991332709 4355 127.0.0.1 (31 May 2001 18:11:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 18:11:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37803 ottoyuhr@cs.com (Ottoyuhr) wrote in message news:<20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com>... > > They also don't fit elvish INTENT TO HURT THINGS WITH THESE > SWORDS!! Does Jackson know that a thick edge doesn't cut? > Well, that's the problem when you have 20th century artists designing weapons for film. They have absolutely no idea how the weapon is supposed to be used, so they design something that looks ridiculous to those who have such knowledge. Add to that the silly desire to make it look different: the designers don't want it to have a classical look, so they pull a really stupid design out of their asses. What they don't realize, is that historical weapons looked the way they did, not because the warriors liked the way they looked, but because they _worked_. In warfare, your life depended on your weapon. If you were stuck wielding a piece of crap, you were pretty much screwed. ###### From: ds50.geo@yahoo.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 31 May 2001 11:15:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 7 Message-ID: <7a9edd20.0105311015.20a19fa2@posting.google.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9f4rau$1l1m$1@news.fsr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.249.64.25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991332940 4402 127.0.0.1 (31 May 2001 18:15:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 18:15:40 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!grolier!freenix!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37816 "Hacky" wrote in message news:<9f4rau$1l1m$1@news.fsr.net>... > Hollywood-ized (is that a word) I prefer using the word "half-assed" myself. :) --Dave ###### From: ds50.geo@yahoo.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 31 May 2001 11:19:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 18 Message-ID: <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.249.64.25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991333190 4630 127.0.0.1 (31 May 2001 18:19:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 18:19:50 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37813 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:<9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>... > "Hacky" wrote in message > news:9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net... > > "Pythoness" wrote in message > > news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... > > > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, > > > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, > > > which is a clue to its impracticality. > > > > Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many > forms > > that are. :-) > > > I think the point is that like everything else Elvish armour is superior to > human armour, and so > should be comfortable to wear. > Agreed, especially when one takes into account the mithril coat that Bilbo gave to Frodo. ###### From: ds50.geo@yahoo.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 31 May 2001 11:22:09 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 10 Message-ID: <7a9edd20.0105311022.388f4073@posting.google.com> References: <300520012329057984%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010531100553.12360.00001885@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.249.64.25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991333329 4654 127.0.0.1 (31 May 2001 18:22:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 18:22:09 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37808 nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message news:<20010531100553.12360.00001885@ng-ba1.news.cs.com>... > > It amazes me that some people like to insist that "leaf-shaped" does not mean > what it obviously means -- an oval with a pointed tip. This is what is > usually thought of as a typical leaf-shape. While it is true that leaves > come in many unusual shapes, it is ludicrous to imagine that a maple-leaf is > what Tolkien had in mind when he uses the phrase. Tolkien is, after all, > trying to communicate, not confuse or mislead or be mysterious. > Yeah, he's describing daggers, not elf ears, after all. :) ###### From: "Severian" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 26 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:51:17 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.179.104 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tx.home.com 991335077 65.13.179.104 (Thu, 31 May 2001 11:51:17 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:51:17 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.tx.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37798 Its funny how one of the best knives in history doesn't look like a standard knife or sword. That would be a Gurkha knife. I can see in my mind how a blade leaf shaped at the end would be useful for slashing by cutting down on material near the hilt. "David Sulger" wrote in message news:7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com... > ottoyuhr@cs.com (Ottoyuhr) wrote in message news:<20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com>... > > > > They also don't fit elvish INTENT TO HURT THINGS WITH THESE > > SWORDS!! Does Jackson know that a thick edge doesn't cut? > > > Well, that's the problem when you have 20th century artists designing > weapons for film. They have absolutely no idea how the weapon is > supposed to be used, so they design something that looks ridiculous to > those who have such knowledge. Add to that the silly desire to make > it look different: the designers don't want it to have a classical > look, so they pull a really stupid design out of their asses. What > they don't realize, is that historical weapons looked the way they > did, not because the warriors liked the way they looked, but because > they _worked_. In warfare, your life depended on your weapon. If you > were stuck wielding a piece of crap, you were pretty much screwed. ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:56:28 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 25 Message-ID: <310520011156283799%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-018.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!newsfeed.germany.net!news.stealth.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37733 In article <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin wrote: > > > Also, a quick flip through a book of swords I have shows no consistency > > between the type of weapons and which have a fuller: both stabbing and > > slashing weapons have them, and yet there would be no need for a fuller on a > > slashing weapon. Also, while some blades have full-length fullers, others > > stop half-way down the blade: not exactly useful if the aim is to prevent > > the blade getting stuck. > > Dito an medieval costume/armor/weaponry book I have here. Seems to be > pure styling element. > Not exclusively. The use of a weapon varied its design. Fullers do reduce weight, and can also be used to add strength because they diffuse the stress over a larger area (vaguely like corrugated cardboard). Most swords with a central rib had the rib to enhance its stiffness, and many of them are thinner than those with a fuller. At any rate the theatrical Sting is *way* thick, be it a knife, a sword, or a keychain. zg ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:27:43 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <310520011156283799%zigi@ravenland.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 11 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37788 > At any rate the theatrical Sting is *way* thick, be it a knife, a > sword, or a keychain. > > zg you may be forgeting to scale the thickness down the same as you would the length to with the size of the hobbit.... The problem is not realy the thickness of the blade, so much as the thinness of the hobbit. ###### Lines: 28 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: ottoyuhr@cs.com (Ottoyuhr) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 31 May 2001 23:09:40 GMT References: <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37768 David Sulger wrote: >"Jamie Armstrong" wrote in >message news:<9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>... >> "Hacky" wrote in message >> news:9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net... >> > "Pythoness" wrote in message >> > news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... >> > > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, >> > > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, >> > > which is a clue to its impracticality. >> > >> > Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many >> forms >> > that are. :-) >> > >> I think the point is that like everything else Elvish armour is superior to >> human armour, and so >> should be comfortable to wear. >> >Agreed, especially when one takes into account the mithril coat that Bilbo >gave to Frodo. I'll bet that the prop of said mithril coat won't be made of aluminum, which I suspect might have been the original mithril (which would have made the Dwarves in Moria quite impressive metalworkers, to be able to get temperatures adequate for any process to extract mithril from bauxite, without electricity at that!). ###### Reply-To: "Matthew" From: "Matthew" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 27 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:10:26 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.40.135.199 X-Complaints-To: abuse@onemain.com X-Trace: nntp1.onemain.com 991350469 216.40.135.199 (Thu, 31 May 2001 19:07:49 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:07:49 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!nntp1.onemain.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37753 So how much money should be spent on making miniscule details like this correct? The movie company would need to hire experts (who would likely never agree anyway) in swords just to make you happy. Then they would have to hire other experts in armor to make the other guy happy, then one for hats, one for horses, one for building techniques, one for bridge construction, one for weather patterns, one for astronomy, one for what was used for toilet paper and on and on and on. Movies would cost a billion dollars and take 50 years to make - and some people would still find things wrong. Everything has to be exactly correct even if only .01% of people have the knowledge to know it is not correct doesn't it. Matthew > Well, that's the problem when you have 20th century artists designing > weapons for film. They have absolutely no idea how the weapon is > supposed to be used, so they design something that looks ridiculous to > those who have such knowledge. Add to that the silly desire to make > it look different: the designers don't want it to have a classical > look, so they pull a really stupid design out of their asses. What > they don't realize, is that historical weapons looked the way they > did, not because the warriors liked the way they looked, but because > they _worked_. In warfare, your life depended on your weapon. If you > were stuck wielding a piece of crap, you were pretty much screwed. ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:26:36 +0100 Lines: 36 Message-ID: <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-141.idaho.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 991351823 32539 62.137.63.141 (31 May 2001 23:30:23 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 23:30:23 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37735 "Matthew" wrote in message news:99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com... > So how much money should be spent on making miniscule details like this > correct? The movie company would need to hire experts (who would likely > never agree anyway) in swords just to make you happy. Then they would have > to hire other experts in armor to make the other guy happy, then one for > hats, one for horses, one for building techniques, one for bridge > construction, one for weather patterns, one for astronomy, one for what was > used for toilet paper and on and on and on. Movies would cost a billion > dollars and take 50 years to make - and some people would still find things > wrong. Everything has to be exactly correct even if only .01% of people have > the knowledge to know it is not correct doesn't it. > Well, to be fair to the nit-pickers (of which I confess I am one), the point is that PJ and the backers of the film have claimed to have meticulously researched LotR, so to see what they have actually produced so far is a bit galling in that context. Tolkien only ever mentions mail in his stories: plate armour is not mentioned at ll. So it suggests that New Line has not been as thorough in their research as they have claimed. The money for this research was there: the research carried out appears to have been inadequate. They should have saved themselves a fortune and come to us at the start :) Besides, if people weren't complaining about this, they'd find something else. At least this has provided some degree of consensus about what sort of armour was around in Middle Earth in the Third Age! And it's not simply slagging off the film either. Jamie ###### From: Donald Shepherd Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:06:09 +1000 Organization: Chicken Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.46.23 X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 991354012 32559 192.168.46.23 (1 Jun 2001 00:06:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2001 00:06:52 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!europa.netcrusader.net!204.71.34.3!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37755 In article <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jamie-Armstrong@dirt- pixie.freeserve.co.uk says... > > "Matthew" wrote in message > news:99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com... > > So how much money should be spent on making miniscule details like > this > > correct? The movie company would need to hire experts (who would likely > > never agree anyway) in swords just to make you happy. Then they would have > > to hire other experts in armor to make the other guy happy, then one for > > hats, one for horses, one for building techniques, one for bridge > > construction, one for weather patterns, one for astronomy, one for what > was > > used for toilet paper and on and on and on. Movies would cost a billion > > dollars and take 50 years to make - and some people would still find > things > > wrong. Everything has to be exactly correct even if only .01% of people > have > > the knowledge to know it is not correct doesn't it. > > > Well, to be fair to the nit-pickers (of which I confess I am one), the point > is that PJ and the backers of the film have claimed to have meticulously > researched LotR, so to see what they have actually produced so far is a bit > galling in that context. Tolkien only ever mentions mail in his stories: > plate armour is not mentioned at ll. So it suggests that New Line has not > been as thorough in their research as they have claimed. The money for this > research was there: the research carried out appears to have been > inadequate. They should have saved themselves a fortune and come to us at > the start :) > > Besides, if people weren't complaining about this, they'd find something > else. At least this has provided some degree of consensus about what sort of > armour was around in Middle Earth in the Third Age! And it's not simply > slagging off the film either. And have to put up with years of arguing on some points? -- Donald Shepherd Apathy killed the cat. ###### From: "Severian" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 28 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:30:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.179.104 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tx.home.com 991359020 65.13.179.104 (Thu, 31 May 2001 18:30:20 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:30:20 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!netnews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.tx.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37794 > I'll bet that the prop of said mithril coat won't be made of aluminum, which I > suspect might have been the original mithril (which would have made the > Dwarves in Moria quite impressive metalworkers, to be able to get temperatures > adequate for any process to extract mithril from bauxite, without electricity > at that!). Aluminum? Aluminum isn't exactly the strongest metal there is. Even a moderate blow from a sword would be enough to cut through some of the links. Aluminum is good in medium stress, cyclic applications. Aluminum has a wonderful ability to bend over and over without breaking, which is why it is used for airplane skin. It is also very light compared to its strength. But its tensile strength is nowhere near that of steel or even silver. The melting point of aluminum is 1220 F where Iron is 2802 and Platinum is 3224. Aluminum is a relatively new metal being discovered in the early 1800's, but that is well before electricity. Now it is true that the best method of obtaining Aluminum from bauxite is electrolysis which requires a temperature of 2700 F. But even so that is still less than the melting point of iron or platinum, both of which are harder than aluminum. Given the supposed white brilliance of mithril it is more likely to be platinum or a platinum alloy, maybe even a titanium alloy. This would be impressive for the dwarves. Sorry for the metallurgy lesson I got sort of carried away :] ###### From: Skylar Thompson Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 20:53:40 -0500 Organization: UTUMNO Lines: 30 Sender: skylar@utumno.attglobal.net Message-ID: <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> Reply-To: skylar@attglobal.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i586) X-Accept-Language: en, es NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.182.178 X-Trace: 1 Jun 2001 09:28:16 GMT, 32.100.182.178 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news2.euro.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!newsfeed2.us.prserv.net!prserv.net!news3.prserv.net!rhino_house.attglobal.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37760 David Sulger wrote: > > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:<9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>... > > "Hacky" wrote in message > > news:9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net... > > > "Pythoness" wrote in message > > > news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... > > > > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, > > > > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, > > > > which is a clue to its impracticality. > > > > > > Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many > > forms > > > that are. :-) > > > > > I think the point is that like everything else Elvish armour is superior to > > human armour, and so > > should be comfortable to wear. > > > Agreed, especially when one takes into account the mithril coat that Bilbo gave to Frodo. Except the mithril coat was Dwarvish, and not Elvish. -- --Skylar Thompson (skylar@attglobal.net) `All that is gold does not glitter/Not all those who wander are lost The old that is strong does not wither/Deep roots are not reached by the frost From the ashes a fire shall be woken/A light from the shadows shall spring Renewed shall be blade that was broken/The crownless again shall be king.' ###### From: "Hacky" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:48:03 -0600 Organization: http://www.geocities.com/jhackwith/ Lines: 11 Message-ID: <9f77d7$vpe$1@news.fsr.net> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: l247100.lew.dialup.fsr.net X-Trace: news.fsr.net 991371495 32558 204.52.247.100 (1 Jun 2001 04:58:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@fsr.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2001 04:58:15 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.wetware.com!attbt1!ip.att.net!news.fsr.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37674 "Ashford Wyrd" wrote in message news:thbtoeepmkds4a@corp.supernews.com... > actuly armor is VERRY comfortable, when constructed to fit corectly, and > properly padded. You grow into it. But in the beginning it hurts like the blazes, until you get callouses where it rubs you raw. Hacky ###### From: "Hacky" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:51:04 -0600 Organization: http://www.geocities.com/jhackwith/ Lines: 23 Message-ID: <9f77d8$vpe$2@news.fsr.net> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <6u7kyxl0y1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: l247100.lew.dialup.fsr.net X-Trace: news.fsr.net 991371496 32558 204.52.247.100 (1 Jun 2001 04:58:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@fsr.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2001 04:58:16 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.wetware.com!attbt1!ip.att.net!news.fsr.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37675 "Neil Franklin" wrote in message news:6u7kyxl0y1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch... > > Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many forms > > that are. :-) > > Nonsense. I can tell you from own[1] and colleages[2] experiences in > historical recreation that fitting armor is not uncomfortable. > > [1] 2 days using borrowed chain mail > > [2] http://dutzend.discordia.ch/Soeldner/DietrichVonReuenthal.jpg > he has also worn chain mail for 3 week-length events Alright, perhaps I should have been more specific. I've worn both plate and chain mail in reenactments. Chain mail is easier, though it rubs if you don't pad it right. Plate mail takes awhile to get used to, and it rubs you raw until you grow callouses on your shoulders, etc. Even if it fits. Hacky ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:00:32 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 33 Message-ID: <010620010100324895%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-029.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.netins.net!usenet.cat.pdx.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37728 In article <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com>, David Sulger wrote: > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in > message news:<9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>... > > "Hacky" wrote in message > > news:9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net... > > > "Pythoness" wrote in message > > > news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... > > > > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, > > > > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, > > > > which is a clue to its impracticality. > > > > > > Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many > > forms > > > that are. :-) Not really--plate armor is heavy, hot, and somewhat constraining, but not nearly as confining as might be thought if one has never worn it. Except for its more extreme forms one retains a remarkable range of motion. I've never worn genuine vintage armor, but I've worn some close imitations, and wouldn't describe it as especially uncomfortable. > > > > > I think the point is that like everything else Elvish armour is superior to > > human armour, and so > > should be comfortable to wear. And this would certainly be true, given that everything elvish *is* so reamrkably superior... Gosh, you'd think it'd be as comfortable as jammies and sneakers! :-) > > > Agreed, especially when one takes into account the mithril coat that Bilbo gave to Frodo. ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:02:20 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 19 Message-ID: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <310520011156283799%zigi@ravenland.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-029.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!loops.cs.wisc.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37721 In article , Ashford Wyrd wrote: > > At any rate the theatrical Sting is *way* thick, be it a knife, a > > sword, or a keychain. > > > > zg > > you may be forgeting to scale the thickness down the same as you would the > length to with the size of the hobbit.... The problem is not realy the > thickness of the blade, so much as the thinness of the hobbit. Actually I'm not forgetting that. :-) I'm really disappointed with Sting--doesn't look any more Elvish than a blunderbuss. But then, well, most of the people cast as elves look as much like my conception of elves as, say, Earnest Borgnine. :-) zg ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:06:33 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 25 Message-ID: <010620010106336607%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-029.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!uchinews!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!loops.cs.wisc.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37727 In article <20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com>, Ottoyuhr wrote: [big snip] > I'll bet that the prop of said mithril coat won't be made of aluminum, which I > suspect might have been the original mithril Ah! I've had the same thought. :-) And then felt rather guilty for it, since I actually am not terribly fond of aluminum--but then I suppose aluminum worked by elves or dwarves would be rather a different critter. (which would have made the > Dwarves in Moria quite impressive metalworkers, to be able to get temperatures > adequate for any process to extract mithril from bauxite, without electricity > at that!). Hear hear: quite a feat. :-) But isn't something about it being as workable as gold in LOTR? That wouldn't suit our latter-day aluminum (though it could be argued that aluminum too has declined through the ages). Rather late, getting silly, zg ###### From: Skylar Thompson Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 06:18:58 -0500 Organization: UTUMNO Lines: 24 Sender: skylar@utumno.attglobal.net Message-ID: <3B177A22.3A1A6B51@utumno.attglobal.net> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> Reply-To: skylar@attglobal.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i586) X-Accept-Language: en, es NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.182.37 X-Trace: 1 Jun 2001 17:48:43 GMT, 32.100.182.37 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc01.blue.aol.com!news.gtei.net.MISMATCH!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.us.prserv.net!prserv.net!news3.prserv.net!rhino_house.attglobal.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37762 Matthew wrote: > > So how much money should be spent on making miniscule details like this > correct? The movie company would need to hire experts (who would likely > never agree anyway) in swords just to make you happy. Then they would have > to hire other experts in armor to make the other guy happy, then one for > hats, one for horses, one for building techniques, one for bridge > construction, one for weather patterns, one for astronomy, one for what was > used for toilet paper and on and on and on. Movies would cost a billion > dollars and take 50 years to make - and some people would still find things > wrong. Everything has to be exactly correct even if only .01% of people have > the knowledge to know it is not correct doesn't it. No. They would simply have to find a suitable picture of , use it as a model, and make prop look like . Which wouldn't be particularily hard, since Frodo is Bilbo's nephew, and first and second cousin. ;) -- --Skylar Thompson (skylar@attglobal.net) `All that is gold does not glitter/Not all those who wander are lost The old that is strong does not wither/Deep roots are not reached by the frost From the ashes a fire shall be woken/A light from the shadows shall spring Renewed shall be blade that was broken/The crownless again shall be king.' ###### Lines: 88 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 16:16:56 GMT References: <9f5vji$koc$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601121656.20500.00002134@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37770 > >No: that would not be long enough. I think 12 inches is the absolute maximum >length, and preferably 9 or10: it would be long blade for a human knife, but >scaled down, it would be the right size for a hobbit short sword. I've done >a bit of experitmenting with a tape measure, and imagined how big Sting >would be if I were a hobbit: I think that the version Elijah Wood use to >provide scale should have been 16-18 inches in length, but as you say, You are apparently using different interpretations of the terms "sword", "short sword" and "knife" than I am accustomed to. In my experience with the terminology of weaponry, an 18-inch blade represents the approximate border-line between the terms "knife" and "sword", and I regularly find references to 16" knives (or longer). Furthermore, 30 inches or longer has been typical blade-length for the sword (in English culture) since the time of the Anglo-Saxons. Typical length became longer with time (as heavier armor had to be dealt with) until 40-inch one-handed blades, and 50-inch two handed blades, were not unusual. >the >prop looks more like 22 or even 24 inches long - IMO, it's too long and to >wide. Considering that 30 inches is standard lenght, 22 to 24 inches is definitely "short-sword" territory in my book, especially considering that blades of less than 18" are generally termed "knives" or "daggers". The Roman "gladius" was approximately this length, and even they had a longer weapon known as a "spatha". 24 inches may have been a normal-length sword in bronze-age times, but by the time the English word "sword" was invented, 22-24 inches was definitely "short". As for its being "too wide", I do not see how you can make such a determination except as a matter of personal aesthetics. It may be rather wider and bulkier than is typical for a short-sword, but it is quite realistic as a elven-sized knife whose dimensions (length, width, and thickness) are all almost doubled to create a prop for a 69-inch actor. >This is the only description I can think of referring to Sting: > >"... Bilbo took a knife in a leather sheath. It would have made only a tiny >pocket-knife for a troll, but it was as good as a short sword for the >hobbit." (The Hobbit, Roast Mutton) > >Note that Sting is a short sword even for a hobbit. But the depiction in the >still is definitely a full-length hobbit sword, or a human-scale short >sword. The depiction is of a martial knife being used as a heavy hobbit short-sword. Make it too much shorter and it would enter "large knife" territory even by hobbit standards. Remember also that these weapons were designed for people about 6.5 feet tall. Rescaled, and you get the following ranges for blade length for daggers and swords. The 2 numbers numbers are (respectively) the approximate boundary between the tems "sword" and "knife" in terms of blade length, and typical blade-length (by Anglo-Saxon standards). 42" hobbit 11", 18" 69" human 18", 30" 78" elf 20", 34" 84" dunedain 22", 36" 14' troll 44", 73" Sting as pictured appears to be about 13" or perhaps 14" to a hobbit. This definitely makes it a "short" sword by hobbit standards, a dagger (and not even an unusually large one) by human, elf, or dunedain standards, whereas to a 14' troll it would appear as a 5-inch blade would appear to us -- too small to make an effective weapon (especially considering the smallness of the hilt), and small enough to fit in one's pocket. Also remember that it is not reasonable to expect a scaled-up dagger to precisely resemble a short-sword, or a scaled-down short sword to precisely resemble a dagger. If we increase all dimensions by a factor of 1.8 (the approximate height difference between a shire hobbit and a gondolin elf), then a 13-inch one-pound dagger becomes a six-pound short sword -- about twice as heavy as one might normally expect. Conversely, if you take a 22", 3-lb short-sword and reduce it on all dimensions, you get a half-pound weapon whose blade is arguably too long and thin to avoid breaking when you attempt to use it to pierce your opponent's leather armour. Thus, it is quite realistic that Jackson's scaled-up dagger appears to be unusually bulky and sturdy. Had he chosen, I suppose he could have minimized this by having Sting be an unusually slight, thin dagger, but this would have diminished Sting's credibility when it comes time for it to be used as a weapon against rock-hard scaly trolls, or the gargantuan Shelob. Remember that Sting is a "spike" that did not bend or break when Shelob sat on it. -- John Whelan ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 10:50:54 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 29 Message-ID: <010620011050542378%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <300520012047264659%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010531130215.07742.00001883@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-011.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!130.240.42.8.MISMATCH!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37731 In article <20010531130215.07742.00001883@ng-fz1.news.cs.com>, Nystulc wrote: > zg wrote: > > >> But if it's a _knife_, not a sword, even if it might look like a > >> (small) sword to a hobbit... > >> > >But surely it'd be an *awfully* unweildy knife, to begin with. :-\ > > I suspect you have not given this much thought. Imagine that blade as being > only 13" long, and protruding from your fist, as you prepare to ram it through > your opponents leather vest. > > I think that you will find that it will not be unwieldy at all, and that its > sturdy construction would be more reassuring than worrisome in this context. > I stand by my perception. Taken all by itself, a photograph of this very movie-prop looking weapon looks like a movie prop, not like a functional hand-weapon. And it most certainly does not look Elvish IMO. Not arguing taste, though. If it looks fine to you (and I recall you have so far quite liked the look of the film from what's been seen?) that's great. zg ###### Lines: 57 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 18:10:36 GMT References: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37767 zg wrote: >> you may be forgeting to scale the thickness down the same as you would the >> length to with the size of the hobbit.... The problem is not realy the >> thickness of the blade, so much as the thinness of the hobbit. > >Actually I'm not forgetting that. :-) Actually you are, or, to be more precise, you are failing to adequately realize what the difference in scale really means. >I'm really disappointed with >Sting--doesn't look any more Elvish than a blunderbuss. While I cannot argue with your sense of aesthetics, there can be no question at all that the weapon pictured, if scaled down by a factor of 1.8 on all dimensions (the approximate height difference between a Gondolin elf and a Shire hobbit), would not look at all bulky, unwieldy, or inelegant in Elijah Wood's hand. I would love to see all your reactions if Jackson had shown you Elijah Wood holding a times-1.8 scaled-up version of Crocodile Dundee's knife (which really IS a knife BTW -- Croc was not abusing the term). I suspect you would then realize, that as weapon-knives go, Jackson's Sting is not nearly as bulky and inelegant as you supposed. For comparison, check out the famous John Howe drawing of Sam attacking Shelob. (Go to www3.tolkienonline.com, open the "Art Gallery, and do a search for "Sting") Here we see Sam wielding a far larger version of Sting than the one featured in the movie still. Even if we allow for the possibility that Sam is an unusually short hobbit of no more than 3', we still have a broad-bladed Sting that seems to exceed 16 inches in length -- not quite what I would call a "short sword for a hobbit" (more like a broadsword), though arguably still "knife" territory from the POV of a Gondolin elf. Yet, judging from the comments on the website, the picture meets with universal approval, all of them rating the picture a 5 out of 5, and none of them complaining about the (arguably) oversized Sting. Why are their no complaints, then, when Sting is so much longer and broader than the relatively slender 13" version being villified here? Part of the answer appears to be the heftiness of Sam, who is nor proportioned as a scaled down human, but has much larger head, hands, feet, and broader body. Next to him Sean Astin would appear as a skinny guy with a tiny head. The other part of the answer is the hugeness of Shelob, who makes both Sam and Sting look small and insignificant. Many other pictures of Sting, (from the same Gallery) are to my mind too small. In one of Alan Lee's pictures for instance - Taming of Smeagol - Sting looks to me more like a long dagger, even from a hobbit POV, than a "short sword" (though in another scene featuring Shelob, Lee makes the blade larger). The most important scene in LOTR that features Sting will be the battle with Shelob. It was wise, I think, to design Sting be a believable weapon in such a context - a large dagger sturdy enough not to bend and break when forced with inhuman strength into armor too thick and tough to be pierced by the strength of any human or elven hero, magic or no. -- John Whelan ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 11 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:42:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991420973 12.79.28.167 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:42:53 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:42:53 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37704 "Skylar Thompson" wrote in message news:3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net... > Except the mithril coat was Dwarvish, and not Elvish. "With that he put on Bilbo a small coat of mail, wrought for some young elf-prince long ago." TH, Not at Home ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:48:37 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 20 Message-ID: <010620011148370682%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-041.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.twtelecom.net!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!loops.cs.wisc.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37914 In article , Conrad Dunkerson wrote: > "Skylar Thompson" wrote in message > news:3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net... > > > Except the mithril coat was Dwarvish, and not Elvish. > > "With that he put on Bilbo a small coat of mail, wrought for some > young elf-prince long ago." > TH, Not at Home *For* some young elf-prince, not by elves, but by dwarves. Which actually leads to the point that, since elves seem to have hired dwarves to do their armoring, that dwarves were perhaps even better at it! zg ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:49:27 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 21 Message-ID: <010620011149273654%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-041.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.f.de.plusline.net!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!loops.cs.wisc.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37916 In article <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com>, Nystulc wrote: > zg wrote: > > >> you may be forgeting to scale the thickness down the same as you would the > >> length to with the size of the hobbit.... The problem is not realy the > >> thickness of the blade, so much as the thinness of the hobbit. > > > >Actually I'm not forgetting that. :-) > > Actually you are, or, to be more precise, you are failing to adequately > realize > what the difference in scale really means. [Snip] But I'm not arguing scale. I'm arguing that the weapon, in and of itself, regardless of scale, looks like what it is, a movie prop. zg ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 13 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:51:12 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991421472 12.79.28.167 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:51:12 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:51:12 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37709 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > Tolkien only ever mentions mail in his stories: plate armour is not > mentioned at ll. "And he held the bright-burnished vambrace that was upon his arm before her cold lips, and behold! a little mist was laid on it hardly to be seen." RotK, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields ###### From: kueikutzu@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:59:14 GMT Message-ID: <3b17e5eb.3271637@news4.sucknews.com> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: news3 Lines: 14 X-Authenticated-User: 880516941 X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support, spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings. X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!! X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to You may also use our online abuse reporting from: http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS) Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-dallas!news-in-dallas.newsfeeds.com!news4.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!n3!anonymous!127.0.0.1!n3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37751 On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:42:53 GMT, "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote: >"Skylar Thompson" wrote in message >news:3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net... > >> Except the mithril coat was Dwarvish, and not Elvish. > >"With that he put on Bilbo a small coat of mail, wrought for some >young elf-prince long ago." >TH, Not at Home > > By whom was it wrought, not for whom? ###### Lines: 15 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: captainpsyko@aol.comMUAHAHA (Keith Causin) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 19:05:06 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601150506.02674.00002201@ng-fa1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37718 > >"With that he put on Bilbo a small coat of mail, wrought for some >young elf-prince long ago." >TH, Not at Home yea... "Wrought FOR some elf prince" (emphasis added) not BY elves... It's a dwarvish mail coat, made as a gift to a young elf... Perfect for a Hobbit who need armor in a hurry... Remove the MUAHAHA to reply by E-mail... Keith "Doing stuff is overrated. Look at Hitler. He did alot, but don't we all just wish he had just stayed home and gotten stoned instead?" -- Dex, "The Tao of Steve" How Hobbit a quote is THAT! ###### From: Spiny2K+1 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:27:12 -0700 Organization: none Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <300520012047264659%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010531130215.07742.00001883@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> <010620011050542378%zigi@ravenland.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.f4.61.ec Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 1 Jun 2001 19:27:54 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37825 Pythoness wrote: > >I stand by my perception. Taken all by itself, a photograph of this >very movie-prop looking weapon looks like a movie prop, not like a >functional hand-weapon. Instead of endlessly shooting off your exceedingly ill-informed mouth, please take two or three minutes to perform some actual research. I suggest you enter the words "celtic short sword" into your favorite web search engine. ###### From: kurgan@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:29:35 GMT Organization: Legion of Immortals Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3b18ecf9.35128157@news.cc.tut.fi> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <6u7kyxl0y1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: a34c.mtalo.ton.tut.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: baker.cc.tut.fi 991423790 24607 193.166.88.122 (1 Jun 2001 19:29:50 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2001 19:29:50 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37684 Neil Franklin wrote: >"Hacky" writes: > >> "Pythoness" wrote in message >> news:290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com... >> > I saw a "spy report" from someone claiming to be an extra elf, >> > complaining about how terribly uncomfortable the elvish armor is, >> > which is a clue to its impracticality. > >Yes. Real armor was used to fight in. It was designed to not >discomfort the wearer, which after all could be deadly. > >> Just about all kinds of armor *ARE* uncomfortable. There aren't many forms >> that are. :-) > >Nonsense. I can tell you from own[1] and colleages[2] experiences in >historical recreation that fitting armor is not uncomfortable. Nonsense. Any kind of armor is uncomfortable for an extra who has to stand around many hours wearing it, having never worn anything like it before. -- 'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO than to fade away!' | kurgan@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o ###### From: kurgan@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:33:12 GMT Organization: Legion of Immortals Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3b1aedb6.35317579@news.cc.tut.fi> References: <9f5vji$koc$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <20010601121656.20500.00002134@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: a34c.mtalo.ton.tut.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: baker.cc.tut.fi 991424006 24607 193.166.88.122 (1 Jun 2001 19:33:26 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2001 19:33:26 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37685 nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote: >Thus, it is quite realistic that Jackson's scaled-up dagger appears to be >unusually bulky and sturdy. Had he chosen, I suppose he could have minimized >this by having Sting be an unusually slight, thin dagger, but this would have >diminished Sting's credibility when it comes time for it to be used as a weapon >against rock-hard scaly trolls, or the gargantuan Shelob. Remember that Sting >is a "spike" that did not bend or break when Shelob sat on it. Besides, Sting does not need to be thin-edged or sharp; it is way past sharpness in a way that must be magical: remember when Bilbo demonstrated it by pushing it effortlessly into the wall in Rivendell? -- 'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO than to fade away!' | kurgan@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o ###### Lines: 55 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 19:35:14 GMT References: <010620011050542378%zigi@ravenland.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601153514.02690.00001958@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37772 zg wrote: >I stand by my perception. Taken all by itself, a photograph of this >very movie-prop looking weapon looks like a movie prop, Since it actually IS a movie prop, I would be hard pressed to prove you wrong. >not like a >functional hand-weapon. This is where you are clearly incorrect. Insofar as the dimensions of the blade and hilt go, it seems a perfectly functional 13" inch knife-weapon, if perhaps not quite so specialized as a specifically STABBING weapon as many medieval daggers, since it also has been provided with a curved cutting edge. The only complaint that I cannot counter is the one that the blade does not look sharp. I am skeptical, of course, that the jokers on this NG can tell the sharpness of a blade viewed broadside just by looking, expecially since they are consistently wrong about everything else. All I know is that I cannot tell. >And it most certainly does not look Elvish IMO. > >Not arguing taste, though. If it looks fine to you (and I recall you >have so far quite liked the look of the film from what's been seen?) >that's great. I am not arguing aesthetics at all. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Personally, I imagined Sting as a straight edged blade, more like a medieval dagger ... but, since Tolkien never describes Sting this specifically, I have no practical reason to assume I am correct. Of course, a medieval dagger would look every bit as bulky is scaled up by a factor of 1.8, and would have you folks complaining just as loud. My position is that, apart from matters of taste, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jackson's depiction of Sting. If you think that it does not look like a functional hand-held weapon then this can mean only one of two things: either (1) you have failed to fully account for scale adjustments, or (2) you know nothing about knives designed for use as"functional hand-held weapons" for use on the battlefield. I am objecting to the fact that Jackson is being faulted for unrealism and inadequate research by persons who have obviously not done their homework nearly as well as Jackson seems to have done. Personally BTW, I am not totally happy with the look of the film. I never imagined hobbits as scaled-down human adults, but more like children in their dimensions. Nor did I imagine Middle Earth as looking like New Zealand (I see it as wilder and more forested). I might have designed Sting differently. But I have no objective basis for claiming that his design of Sting is wrong or unreasonable. Admittedly, my knowledge of weapon design is minimal, but it is adequate to tell me that the self-described experts critiquing Jackson on this NG are all blowing hot air. -- John Whelan ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9f3opc$752$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 26 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:38:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991424305 12.79.28.167 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:38:25 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:38:25 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!deine.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37706 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:9f3opc$752$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk... > As a slightly related issue, does anyone know what metal the elves > used for their swords? I'm wondering if, as with everything else > produced by elves, elvish blades are stronger and lighter and > generally far superior than the swords of men. Eol used meteoric iron for Anglachel (Gurthang) and Anguirel. The fact that these two swords were considered exceptional would generally argue for most weapons being of quite poor quality... meteoric iron historically only being noteworthy in that it was more readily available than other forms of iron prior to the development of iron mining and smelting. Still, Tolkien could have been playing up the mystical connotations without regard to the metallurgical realities. This seems to be the case as Glamdring cuts through strong metal chains with ease... implying a craftsmanship beyond anything in our own world. A mithril alloy is a remote possibility as it might have been available in Aman. Still, the Elves created several unusual alloys and it seems likely that the Gondolin blades with their 'glow when enemies are near' feature were some sort of unspecified alloy. ###### Lines: 20 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 19:45:21 GMT References: <20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601154521.02690.00001959@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newscore.gigabell.net!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37771 Ottoyuhr wrote: >I'll bet that the prop of said mithril coat won't be made of aluminum, which >I >suspect might have been the original mithril (which would have made the >Dwarves in Moria quite impressive metalworkers, to be able to get >temperatures >adequate for any process to extract mithril from bauxite, without electricity >at that!). Aluminum has a high degree of structural strength relative to its weight, but it does not have the qualities necessary to make effective armor. Heavier, denser steel weapons would smash through it with ease. If you want a modern metal that might have mithril-like qualities of lightness and toughness, I suggest Titanium. It is lighter than steel, and some alloys are every bit as tough, or even tougher. Titanium alloys are actually used as armor for tanks and such. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 22 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 19:54:30 GMT References: <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601155430.02690.00001961@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37944 David Sulger wrote: >Well, that's the problem when you have 20th century artists designing >weapons for film. They have absolutely no idea how the weapon is >supposed to be used, so they design something that looks ridiculous to >those who have such knowledge. Add to that the silly desire to make >it look different: the designers don't want it to have a classical >look, so they pull a really stupid design out of their asses. What >they don't realize, is that historical weapons looked the way they >did, not because the warriors liked the way they looked, but because >they _worked_. In warfare, your life depended on your weapon. If you >were stuck wielding a piece of crap, you were pretty much screwed. Is this commentary supposed to have some relevance to the weapon actually pictured? As far as I can tell, all criticisms leveled at it so far (such as the claim that real blades don't have central ridges) have only displayed the ignorance of the critic. Please explain again how the weapon pictured violates sound principles of weapon design. I'm confused on this point. -- John Whelan ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3b145d89.415135@news.powersurfr.com> <20010531125543.07742.00001882@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 29 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: <1ySR6.57117$t12.4577411@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:03:09 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991425789 12.79.28.167 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:03:09 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:03:09 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!deine.net!news.stealth.net!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37893 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010531125543.07742.00001882@ng-fz1.news.cs.com... > I would estimate from this picture that the actual blade of the > prop in Elijah's hands is only about 22", which arguably meets the > criteria for a "short sword", depending on what you consider to be > normal sword-length. Scale this down to hobbit size and you have a > dagger-blade of 12 to 13 inches. I don't know how tall Wood is, so it is hard to estimate but I'd put the blade at over two feet unless Wood is around 5' tall. In any case, a short sword ought to be about 1.5x the length of the forearm of the wielder (including hilt) - about 23" total for a person of average height... while this weapon is longer than Wood's entire arm; making it much closer to a broadsword than a short-sword. As to scaling... I'd think it would be irrelevant unless they are going to scale the sword differently than Wood. It would tend to decrease the severity of any discrepancy, but as the weapon doesn't look like a short-sword in the hands of a full sized Elijah Wood a 'half sized' weapon isn't going to look much better in the hands of a 'half sized' Wood. On the other hand, if the sword wielding figure in Tolkien's sketch 'The Coming of the Eagles' is taken to be Bilbo (by no means certain) then Jackson's Sting would be right about the same length... though not the right shape at all. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <9f5vji$koc$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <20010601121656.20500.00002134@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 28 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:14:13 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991426453 12.79.28.167 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:14:13 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:14:13 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.72!wnfilter2!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37903 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010601121656.20500.00002134@ng-fg1.news.cs.com... > Furthermore, 30 inches or longer has been typical blade-length for > the sword (in English culture) since the time of the Anglo-Saxons. Hrrrmmm... in my experience that's 30 inches TOTAL length - not blade length. And I'd argue that the weapon Wood is shown holding IS 30 inches in total length. Still, I think this is one of the more nit-picky points... I do think Sting is a bit oversized here but don't particularly have a problem with it. Nor do I object to the design per se... it isn't practical nor at all how I'd pictured Sting, but I can't fault Jackson for not being (or hiring) a truly competent weapons designer so long as the arms do not look ridiculous when viewed from a 'laymans' persepective. That ludicrous helmet now... if that THING actually makes it on film I'll object to the sheer stupidity of it, but Sting passes the 'smell test' - it isn't 'exactly right' or even properly designed, but it is not so obviously bad as to be laughable in the eyes of the common viewer. Not exactly a ringing endorsement I suppose, but I'm willing to cut Jackson some slack on Sting (and the full plate armor for that matter) if he just gets rid of the bizarro helmet. ###### Lines: 24 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 20:19:14 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601161914.02690.00001965@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37947 Severian wrote: >Its funny how one of the best knives in history doesn't look like a standard >knife or sword. That would be a Gurkha knife. I can see in my mind how a >blade leaf shaped at the end would be useful for slashing by cutting down on >material near the hilt. An edge cuts better when curved outward, which is the logic behind the design of a scimitar or katana. The leaf-blade design results when you attempt to make both sides of a double-edged blade equally curved. In bronze-age swords, the blade is curved outward at the point where one is most likely to strike an opponent with a slashing blow. Once steel swords made longer blades possible, this design fell into dissuse (for swords, not necessarily knives). A leaf-bladed long-sword with a significant curve would have to have a very broad blade, which would make it too heavy to swing, especially with the wider part of the blade near the end of the sword. Thus, when swords reach this length, the designer must choose between the straight blade, or a single-edged curved sword. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 21 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 20:24:02 GMT References: <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601162402.02690.00001967@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37946 Matthew wrote: > So how much money should be spent on making miniscule details like this >correct? The movie company would need to hire experts (who would likely >never agree anyway) in swords just to make you happy. Then they would have >to hire other experts in armor to make the other guy happy, then one for >hats, one for horses, one for building techniques, one for bridge >construction, one for weather patterns, one for astronomy, one for what was >used for toilet paper and on and on and on. Movies would cost a billion >dollars and take 50 years to make - and some people would still find things >wrong. Everything has to be exactly correct even if only .01% of people have >the knowledge to know it is not correct doesn't it. Doing a little research would not cost nearly as much as you think. However, judging from the reactions on this NG, any money spent is money wasted. Whether achieves realism or not, Jackson is sure to be attacked by ignoramuses who imagine they know better. -- John Whelan ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 18 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:24:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991427095 12.79.28.167 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:24:55 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:24:55 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!204.127.161.2.MISMATCH!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.72!wnfilter2!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37900 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com... > While I cannot argue with your sense of aesthetics, there can be no > question at all that the weapon pictured, if scaled down by a > factor of 1.8 on all dimensions (the approximate height difference > between a Gondolin elf and a Shire hobbit), would not look at all > bulky, unwieldy, or inelegant in Elijah Wood's hand. I fail to see the logic... given that Elijah Wood(and his hand) would presumably ALSO be scaled down by a factor of 1.8. If it looks bulky, unwieldy or inelegant at full size (though I don't think it particularly DOES) then it would be nearly as much so scaled down by 1.8.... not exactly as much so as the smaller scale would diminish the 'degree' of the discrepancy (but not the proportion). ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> <3b17e5eb.3271637@news4.sucknews.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 12 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: <4VSR6.57159$t12.4581013@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:27:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991427264 12.79.28.167 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:27:44 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:27:44 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!news.stealth.net!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37888 wrote in message news:3b17e5eb.3271637@news4.sucknews.com... > By whom was it wrought, not for whom? It is called 'dwarf-mail' in places, so you are likely correct in the implication that the Dwarves made it. I was just trying to show where the idea of elven origin might have come from. Nor do I think it can be COMPLETELY ruled out as a possibility. ###### Lines: 34 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 01 Jun 2001 20:41:10 GMT References: <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601164110.02690.00001968@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37945 Jamie Armstrong wrote: >Well, to be fair to the nit-pickers (of which I confess I am one), the point >is that PJ and the backers of the film have claimed to have meticulously >researched LotR, so to see what they have actually produced so far is a bit >galling in that context. Apart from matters of personal taste, I am not aware that anyone has yet produced an actual example that stands up to argument. >Tolkien only ever mentions mail in his stories: >plate armour is not mentioned at all. Aren't you forgetting about Prince Imrahil's "bright-burnished vambrace" that he holds to Eowyn's mouth in the hope of detecting a trace of breath? Clearly Imrahil was wearing plate armour at least on his forearm. >So it suggests that New Line has not >been as thorough in their research as they have claimed. I think it suggests something else entirely. >The money for this >research was there: the research carried out appears to have been >inadequate. They should have saved themselves a fortune Clearly, they should have, since they cannot win in any event. >and come to us at >the start :) Personally, I am relieved that they did not. -- John Whelan ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: tbarrie@cs.toronto.edu (Trevor Barrie) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film X-Nntp-Posting-Host: qew.cs.toronto.edu Message-ID: <2001Jun1.171920.29598@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> Organization: CSLab, University of Toronto References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Date: 1 Jun 2001 21:19:20 GMT Lines: 15 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!utnut!utgpu!utcsri!cs.toronto.edu!tbarrie Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37951 In article , Conrad Dunkerson wrote: >"Jamie Armstrong" wrote in >message news:9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > >> Tolkien only ever mentions mail in his stories: plate armour is not >> mentioned at ll. > >"And he held the bright-burnished vambrace that was upon his arm >before her cold lips, and behold! a little mist was laid on it hardly >to be seen." >RotK, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields I'm no expert on armour; does a vambrace imply the presence of a suit of plate armour? ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:39:32 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 24 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!209.249.90.60.MISMATCH!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37943 "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote in message news:rSSR6.57154$t12.4580121@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "Nystulc" wrote in message > news:20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com... > > > While I cannot argue with your sense of aesthetics, there can be no > > question at all that the weapon pictured, if scaled down by a > > factor of 1.8 on all dimensions (the approximate height difference > > between a Gondolin elf and a Shire hobbit), would not look at all > > bulky, unwieldy, or inelegant in Elijah Wood's hand. > > I fail to see the logic... given that Elijah Wood(and his hand) > would presumably ALSO be scaled down by a factor of 1.8. If it looks > bulky, unwieldy or inelegant at full size (though I don't think it > particularly DOES) then it would be nearly as much so scaled down by > 1.8.... not exactly as much so as the smaller scale would diminish > the 'degree' of the discrepancy (but not the proportion). > You failed to understand the poster... If the weapon were scaled down at a 1.8 ratio, keeping Elijah the same size the weapon would apear a small and even kind of kewl knife...it would also apear quite sharp ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:08:47 +0100 Lines: 87 Message-ID: <9f97fa$75p$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <9f5vji$koc$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <20010601121656.20500.00002134@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-213.georgia.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news5.svr.pol.co.uk 991437098 7353 62.137.61.213 (1 Jun 2001 23:11:38 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2001 23:11:38 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37897 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010601121656.20500.00002134@ng-fg1.news.cs.com... > > > Remember also that these weapons were designed for people about 6.5 feet tall. > Rescaled, and you get the following ranges for blade length for daggers and > swords. The 2 numbers numbers are (respectively) the approximate boundary > between the tems "sword" and "knife" in terms of blade length, and typical > blade-length (by Anglo-Saxon standards). > > 42" hobbit 11", 18" > 69" human 18", 30" > 78" elf 20", 34" > 84" dunedain 22", 36" > 14' troll 44", 73" > > Sting as pictured appears to be about 13" or perhaps 14" to a hobbit. This > definitely makes it a "short" sword by hobbit standards, a dagger (and not even > an unusually large one) by human, elf, or dunedain standards, whereas to a 14' > troll it would appear as a 5-inch blade would appear to us -- too small to make > an effective weapon (especially considering the smallness of the hilt), and > small enough to fit in one's pocket. Right, I've had a look on the web to find the sort of thing I have in mind. This site is not perfect by any means, but will do to illustrate the point I am making: http://www.knifeoutlet.com/fantasy.htm Ignore the ludicrous designs and look for numbers 1102 and 1144: the first is vaguely the sort of design I have in mind for Sting (I say "vaguely" with the strongest possible emphasis: the blade is the right shape, IMO, but the hilt is too fancy); the second is the size I think is correct, both in terms of blade length and blade width. As you will see, the blade is 10 1/2" long. > The > approximate height difference between a shire hobbit and a gondolin elf), then > a 13-inch one-pound dagger becomes a six-pound short sword -- about twice as > heavy as one might normally expect. Conversely, if you take a 22", 3-lb > short-sword and reduce it on all dimensions, you get a half-pound weapon whose > blade is arguably too long and thin to avoid breaking when you attempt to use > it to pierce your opponent's leather armour. > > Thus, it is quite realistic that Jackson's scaled-up dagger appears to be > unusually bulky and sturdy. Had he chosen, I suppose he could have minimized > this by having Sting be an unusually slight, thin dagger, but this would have > diminished Sting's credibility when it comes time for it to be used as a weapon > against rock-hard scaly trolls, or the gargantuan Shelob. Remember that Sting > is a "spike" that did not bend or break when Shelob sat on it. You are forgetting that Sting is an elvish blade: it won't break or bend, and it is extremely sharp... Ultimately this is all an academic point, and is purely a matter of aesthetics: certainly not of 'expertise' as you have claimed elsewhere in this thread. I don't think anyone on this side of the argument has claimed to 'know' how long Sting is ( I haven't made any such claim), the point we are making is that when we look at that picture it just looks wrong:. You however think it looks right. That is a purely subjective opinion: we can all hit each other over the head with measurements till the cows come home, but it won't change opinions. Having said that, I will accept your points about the length of Anglo-Saxon and later medieval knives and swords. I had misunderestimated (sic) just how long these blades were. Jamie ###### From: Skylar Thompson Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:14:08 -0500 Organization: UTUMNO Lines: 24 Sender: skylar@utumno.attglobal.net Message-ID: <3B1821C0.4300081C@utumno.attglobal.net> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> Reply-To: skylar@attglobal.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i586) X-Accept-Language: en, es NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.101.12.242 X-Trace: 1 Jun 2001 23:16:15 GMT, 32.101.12.242 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.nyc.globix.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!newsfeed2.us.prserv.net!prserv.net!news3.prserv.net!rhino_house.attglobal.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37930 Conrad Dunkerson wrote: > > "Skylar Thompson" wrote in message > news:3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net... > > > Except the mithril coat was Dwarvish, and not Elvish. > > "With that he put on Bilbo a small coat of mail, wrought for some > young elf-prince long ago." > TH, Not at Home Where would the Elves have gotten mithril, except from the Dwarves? What I imagine happened was the Dwarves made the coat somewhere like Khazad-dum, or the Blue Mountains in the First Age, sold it to the Elves, then found/bought it again. The passage does not say who made it, only for whom it was made. -- --Skylar Thompson (skylar@attglobal.net) `All that is gold does not glitter/Not all those who wander are lost The old that is strong does not wither/Deep roots are not reached by the frost From the ashes a fire shall be woken/A light from the shadows shall spring Renewed shall be blade that was broken/The crownless again shall be king.' ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:25:19 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 44 Message-ID: <010620011625192618%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <9f5vji$koc$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <20010601121656.20500.00002134@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> <9f97fa$75p$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-022.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37915 In article <9f97fa$75p$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jamie Armstrong wrote: > Right, I've had a look on the web to find the sort of thing I have in mind. > This site is not perfect by any means, but will do to illustrate the point I > am making: > > http://www.knifeoutlet.com/fantasy.htm > > Ignore the ludicrous designs and look for numbers 1102 and 1144: the first > is vaguely the sort of design I have in mind for Sting (I say "vaguely" with > the strongest possible emphasis: the blade is the right shape, IMO, but the > hilt is too fancy); the second is the size I think is correct, both in terms > of blade length and blade width. As you will see, the blade is 10 1/2" long. The first more than the second for me (with the same reservations about the hilt and guard); this is closer to the blade shape I imagine for Sting. To my eyes (ie, IMO) it's a far more graceful design. I'd have to look at the picture again (I suspect it's getting uglier in my mind) but doesn't the movie Sting look rather front-heavy? Doesn't look like it would balance, IIRC. > You are forgetting that Sting is an elvish blade: it won't break or bend, > and it is extremely sharp... I actually, incidentally, don't think a really sharp blade would appear to have rounded edges even scaled down to a 1:8 ratio, and I don't think the makers of Sting would have had to worry about razor-sharp edges being too fragile, as may be the case with medieval weaponry. Sting was reinforced with magic. :-) > > Ultimately this is all an academic point, and is purely a matter of > aesthetics: certainly not of 'expertise' as you have claimed elsewhere in > this thread. I don't think anyone on this side of the argument has claimed > to 'know' how long Sting is ( I haven't made any such claim), the point we > are making is that when we look at that picture it just looks wrong:. You > however think it looks right. That is a purely subjective opinion: we can > all hit each other over the head with measurements till the cows come home, > but it won't change opinions. Hear, hear. :-) zg ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:27:02 +0100 Lines: 20 Message-ID: <9f98dp$4q$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> <3B1821C0.4300081C@utumno.attglobal.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-213.georgia.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 991438073 154 62.137.61.213 (1 Jun 2001 23:27:53 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2001 23:27:53 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37889 "Skylar Thompson" wrote in message news:3B1821C0.4300081C@utumno.attglobal.net... > Where would the Elves have gotten mithril, except from the Dwarves? What > I imagine happened was the Dwarves made the coat somewhere like Khazad-dum, > or the Blue Mountains in the First Age, sold it to the Elves, then > found/bought it again. The passage does not say who made it, only for whom > it was made. > Hmmm... I always imagined the mithril coat was ordered by an elf, made at the Lonely Mountain using some reserves of mithril that had been bought from Moria, and that just after it was completed, but before it could be delivered, Smaug decided to impose himself on the dwarves. Jamie ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:36:25 +0100 Lines: 58 Message-ID: <9f98vc$88n$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <20010601164110.02690.00001968@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-213.georgia.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news5.svr.pol.co.uk 991438636 8471 62.137.61.213 (1 Jun 2001 23:37:16 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2001 23:37:16 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37906 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010601164110.02690.00001968@ng-fa1.news.cs.com... > Jamie Armstrong wrote: > > >Well, to be fair to the nit-pickers (of which I confess I am one), the point > >is that PJ and the backers of the film have claimed to have meticulously > >researched LotR, so to see what they have actually produced so far is a bit > >galling in that context. > > Apart from matters of personal taste, I am not aware that anyone has yet > produced an actual example that stands up to argument. > > >Tolkien only ever mentions mail in his stories: > >plate armour is not mentioned at all. > > Aren't you forgetting about Prince Imrahil's "bright-burnished vambrace" that > he holds to Eowyn's mouth in the hope of detecting a trace of breath? Clearly > Imrahil was wearing plate armour at least on his forearm. > Yes I did forget. But when I was said plate armour, I was thinking of the full uites depicted in the trailers. I don't know if there is any historical precedence, but I don't see why you couldn't wear a mail shirt with short arms and a pair of vambraces > >So it suggests that New Line has not > >been as thorough in their research as they have claimed. > > I think it suggests something else entirely. > Ha. > >The money for this > >research was there: the research carried out appears to have been > >inadequate. They should have saved themselves a fortune > > Clearly, they should have, since they cannot win in any event. Of course they can't! The whole point of the film is that people get to whinge and moan about this scene, that actor, and the other prop! Why else would anyone make a film? > >and come to us at > >the start :) > > Personally, I am relieved that they did not. > You mean you wouldn't have wanted a bit of the cash? Strange person... ;) Jamie ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <2001Jun1.171920.29598@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 14 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:25:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.50 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991448715 12.79.23.50 (Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:25:15 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:25:15 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37873 "Trevor Barrie" wrote in message news:2001Jun1.171920.29598@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu... > I'm no expert on armour; does a vambrace imply the presence of a > suit of plate armour? A vambrace is a piece of plate armour covering the lower arm. It is not a suit of full plate, but it IS plate armor and therefor Tolkien indicated the stuff existed in Middle Earth... at that, the rest of Imrahil's armor MIGHT have been plate as well, we really don't know. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 16 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: <7bYR6.192$Ji.20079@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:28:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.50 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991448899 12.79.23.50 (Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:28:19 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:28:19 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!news.stealth.net!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37872 "Ashford Wyrd" wrote in message news:thg6dkgj39ql12@corp.supernews.com... > You failed to understand the poster... If the weapon were scaled > down at a 1.8 ratio, keeping Elijah the same size the weapon would > apear a small and even kind of kewl knife...it would also apear > quite sharp No... I got that part. I just failed to understand what relevance that had as for the movie both the weapon AND Elijah would be scaled down... NOT just the weapon. Essentially that is saying that if the weapon were smaller relative to Elijah Wood it would be the right size... which is what the poster was OBJECTING too. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <20010601164110.02690.00001968@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> <9f98vc$88n$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 15 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:35:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.50 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991449326 12.79.23.50 (Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:35:26 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:35:26 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37875 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:9f98vc$88n$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk... > I don't know if there is any historical precedence, but I don't see > why you couldn't wear a mail shirt with short arms and a pair of > vambraces Plate and mail. Quite common around 1350. However, if Imrahil had a plate vambrace he might have been wearing full plate... and thus Jackson's depiction of such is not "wrong" - merely an unproven interpretation. It is possible that such armor was used. It is possible that it was not. ###### Lines: 54 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: ottoyuhr@cs.com (Ottoyuhr) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 02 Jun 2001 03:34:46 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010601233446.22859.00002261@ng-xc1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37948 Conrad Dunkerson wrote: >"Jamie Armstrong" wrote in >message news:9f3opc$752$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk... > >> As a slightly related issue, does anyone know what metal the elves >> used for their swords? I'm wondering if, as with everything else >> produced by elves, elvish blades are stronger and lighter and >> generally far superior than the swords of men. > >Eol used meteoric iron for Anglachel (Gurthang) and Anguirel. The >fact that these two swords were considered exceptional would >generally argue for most weapons being of quite poor quality... >meteoric iron historically only being noteworthy in that it was more >readily available than other forms of iron prior to the development >of iron mining and smelting. It's also remarkable because it has a higher carbon content than even Damascus steel, making it extremely difficult to work but very resilient and powerful when it has been worked. Meteoric iron is also extremely rare; primitive cultures, "prior to the development of iron mining and smithing," would probably have worshipped an iron-containing meteorite instead of making it into weaponry. >Still, Tolkien could have been playing >up the mystical connotations without regard to the metallurgical >realities. This is possible, except that the metallurgical realities would make Anglachel and Anguriel extremely powerful swords. >This seems to be the case as Glamdring cuts through >strong metal chains with ease... implying a craftsmanship beyond >anything in our own world. > >A mithril alloy is a remote possibility as it might have been >available in Aman. Still, the Elves created several unusual alloys >and it seems likely that the Gondolin blades with their 'glow when >enemies are near' feature were some sort of unspecified alloy. Or they might have been enchanted. Then again, the Elves were already using mithril (aluminum?) in smithing, so what would have stopped them from mining U-238 and making a heat-activated-uranium alloy, then adding it to their swords? For that matter, how about depleted-uranium arrows? I suspect that this was the real reason why Morgoth was so eager to destroy Gondolin: the city was built near a rich deposit of uranium ore and he wanted to stop them before they could build an atom bomb and detonate it near Angband. :-) ------------ Ottoyuhr, who hopes to get into the "Crackpot Theories Page" one of these days. ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 21:01:25 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 34 Message-ID: <010620012101255674%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <300520012047264659%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010531130215.07742.00001883@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> <010620011050542378%zigi@ravenland.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-038.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.netins.net!usenet.cat.pdx.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37911 In article , Spiny2K+1 wrote: > Pythoness wrote: > > > > >I stand by my perception. Taken all by itself, a photograph of this > >very movie-prop looking weapon looks like a movie prop, not like a > >functional hand-weapon. > > Instead of endlessly shooting off your exceedingly ill-informed mouth, Hm. I think this tack begs the question of exactly who is shooting off his/her mouth. > please take two or three minutes to perform some actual research. I > suggest you enter the words "celtic short sword" into your favorite > web search engine. First, we're not talking about Celtic short swords: we're talking about a knife made in Gondolin for the goblin-wars. It's an important distinction. Next, very slowly: I am not taking exception to the weapon's *general* design. I am not taking exception to the weapon's size vis-a-vis the actor. I am taking exception to the precise item shown in the single picture under discussion, which to my eye (which is better informed than you imagine) looks unrealistic, for a number of reasons which have already been discussed. zg ###### From: Donald Shepherd Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:55:30 +1000 Organization: Chicken Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> <7bYR6.192$Ji.20079@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.46.23 X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 991457771 30496 192.168.46.23 (2 Jun 2001 04:56:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jun 2001 04:56:11 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37937 In article <7bYR6.192$Ji.20079@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net says... > "Ashford Wyrd" wrote in message > news:thg6dkgj39ql12@corp.supernews.com... > > > You failed to understand the poster... If the weapon were scaled > > down at a 1.8 ratio, keeping Elijah the same size the weapon would > > apear a small and even kind of kewl knife...it would also apear > > quite sharp > > No... I got that part. I just failed to understand what relevance > that had as for the movie both the weapon AND Elijah would be scaled > down... NOT just the weapon. Essentially that is saying that if > the weapon were smaller relative to Elijah Wood it would be the right > size... which is what the poster was OBJECTING too. Actually Elijah would be scaled down less than Sting, because he isn't the same height as a Gondolin Elf, rather a 19 year old human. -- Donald Shepherd Apathy killed the cat. ###### From: Donald Shepherd Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:57:41 +1000 Organization: Chicken Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> <3b17e5eb.3271637@news4.sucknews.com> <4VSR6.57159$t12.4581013@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.46.23 X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 991457902 30496 192.168.46.23 (2 Jun 2001 04:58:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jun 2001 04:58:22 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!news.mel.connect.com.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37938 In article <4VSR6.57159$t12.4581013@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net says... > wrote in message > news:3b17e5eb.3271637@news4.sucknews.com... > > > By whom was it wrought, not for whom? > > It is called 'dwarf-mail' in places, so you are likely correct in the > implication that the Dwarves made it. I was just trying to show > where the idea of elven origin might have come from. Nor do I think > it can be COMPLETELY ruled out as a possibility. You never completely rule out possibilities, do you? :) After reading the Balrog's wings essay, and several other of your long posts, they always seem to come down to "Either of these possibilities are viable because of lack of evidence". Not that this is a bad thing of course. Oh yeah, happy birthday BTW. -- Donald Shepherd Apathy killed the cat. ###### Message-ID: <3B18B726.E8D6CF6@earthlink.net> From: Packrat X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film References: <3b1367e3$0$12250$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <20010529165928.16614.00001738@ng-mf1.aol.com> <3b14a37d$0$15025$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f2el3$vsj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b14c0f7$0$15023$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <9f34mt$84d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 25 Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 09:54:10 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.48.39.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 991475650 63.48.39.224 (Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:54:10 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:54:10 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:52:19 PDT (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37858 Neil Franklin wrote: > > "Jamie Armstrong" writes: > > But, if the aim is to make the blade lighter then it makes a lot more sense > > to the design: after all, although you might only shave a few pounds of the > > eventual weight of the weapon, those pounds will make all the difference in > > battle. > > Looking at the pictures here, I doubt it even reduces metal volume by > 5%. So assuming the average weight stated here (1.2kg), we are saving > less than 60g. Irrelevant. > Irrelevant in terms of total weight, perhaps. But when you're talking about balance 60g is quite a lot, and can have a serious effect on how the weapon handles. -Packrat -- `,''`. `, ; : packrat42@earthlink.net : ; .''`. .''` :,,' `.''`. .''`. ,.:., "...a stranger and exile ;`'' : : : ;``. : : : : on the earth." ,' ``' ` `.., ,' ; ; ``' ` ; ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3B137EA2.E88FD6F8@informatik.med.uni-giessen.de> <290520011327019211%zigi@ravenland.com> <9f4rav$1l1m$2@news.fsr.net> <9f5a9s$bb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <3B16F5A4.2C555C3@utumno.attglobal.net> <3b17e5eb.3271637@news4.sucknews.com> <4VSR6.57159$t12.4581013@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 39 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:28:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.22.139 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991481288 12.79.22.139 (Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:28:08 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:28:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37859 "Donald Shepherd" wrote in message news:MPG.15830f40ed8e52819896e2@news.uq.edu.au... > You never completely rule out possibilities, do you? :) Almost never. I used to do so more, but I've found that it causes more trouble than it is worth. The fact is that there are alot of different interpretations out there, and almost anything you take as a given will be disputed by SOMEONE who believes otherwise. Often these opposing views are strongly held by numerous intelligent people. For instance, I'd generally accepted the various evidences for pointed Elven ears in Tolkien's work as conclusive and assumed it was an accepted issue (as it is stated unambiguously in the FAQ), but there was a tremendous outcry from numerous people who for some reason find pointed ears silly and offensive to their image of Tolkien. Examining the evidence objectively I found it really isn't conclusive either way what his final intent was (though I will still maintain without equivocation that he specified they were pointed in the etymologies entry - but this may have been a transitory idea). > After reading the Balrog's wings essay, and several other of your > long posts, they always seem to come down to "Either of these > possibilities are viable because of lack of evidence". Not that > this is a bad thing of course. Unfortunately so. The topics on which people generally agree have little need of long essays explaining the various evidences. I may do a summation on the question of whether Hobbits were Human at some point as that is frequently debated... but Tolkien's statements on the matter are precise and entirely consistent, the objectors just generally have not SEEN them, so I'd probably be able to state THAT one directly. > Oh yeah, happy birthday BTW. Thank you. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> <7bYR6.192$Ji.20079@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 37 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: <1j5S6.484$Ji.70086@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:51:09 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.22.139 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991486269 12.79.22.139 (Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:51:09 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:51:09 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37865 "Donald Shepherd" wrote in message news:MPG.15830ebdf64340819896e1@news.uq.edu.au... > Actually Elijah would be scaled down less than Sting, because he > isn't the same height as a Gondolin Elf, rather a 19 year old > human. Um... ok, somehow this idea just isn't getting through. For the film. They will take the image of Elijah Wood holding Sting. They will scale this image down. They will then superimpose it on the scene with the full size actors. Whatever scaling ratio they use will apply equally to Elijah Wood and Sting. Ergo, the proportions between the person and the blade will remain EXACTLY the same. If the proportions are wrong in the image shown (and I think Sting looks more like a broadsword for Elijah than a shortsword) then they will continue to be wrong when both Elijah and Sting are scaled down. No, Elijah wood is not a Gondolin Elf. That is true. Nor is he a hobbit. Neither fact is relevant to how he and the sword will appear in the film. They will appear EXACTLY as they do in the picture in question. Only the proportions of the world AROUND them will change. The complexity required to have a scaled down Elijah holding a Sting scaled down relative to himself would be silly... the sword and the rest of his equipment are thus made in proportion to the full sized Elijah and they are all scaled down together. The Sting shown in the picture is longer than Elijah's entire arm - and thus NOT a shortsword for someone his size (regardless of how tall he is), and the scaled down version will not be a shortsword for scaled down Elijah/Frodo. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20010601233446.22859.00002261@ng-xc1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 22 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:13:04 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.22.139 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991487584 12.79.22.139 (Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:13:04 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:13:04 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37862 "Ottoyuhr" wrote in message news:20010601233446.22859.00002261@ng-xc1.news.cs.com... > It's also remarkable because it has a higher carbon content than > even Damascus steel, making it extremely difficult to work but very > resilient and powerful when it has been worked. Somehow I knew someone was going to bring up the oxidation. Yes, a fine grade steel can be MADE from some meteoric iron. During the time meteoric iron was being used however the skills to do so did not exist. By the time they did it was largely unavailable. However, modern steel can (though usually is not) be made far stronger especially when alloyed. Historically speaking items made of meteoric iron would only be impressive up through the bronze and iron 'ages'. If there'd still been much around in the early 'steel age' it might have been a notch above, but today it would be nothing special. Meanwhile Glamdring (and Angrist) was apparently superior to any modern blade... and so my statement of the apparent contradiction. ###### Lines: 41 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 02 Jun 2001 18:43:01 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010602144301.12248.00002173@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38072 Conrad Dunkerson wrote: >> While I cannot argue with your sense of aesthetics, there can be no >> question at all that the weapon pictured, if scaled down by a >> factor of 1.8 on all dimensions (the approximate height difference >> between a Gondolin elf and a Shire hobbit), would not look at all >> bulky, unwieldy, or inelegant in Elijah Wood's hand. > >I fail to see the logic... given that Elijah Wood(and his hand) >would presumably ALSO be scaled down by a factor of 1.8. If it looks >bulky, unwieldy or inelegant at full size (though I don't think it >particularly DOES) then it would be nearly as much so scaled down by >1.8.... not exactly as much so as the smaller scale would diminish >the 'degree' of the discrepancy (but not the proportion). A claim was made that the weapon was way too broad, bulky, and unwieldy, and therefore badly designed. It was pointed out, in retort, that it was not designed to be a shortsword for a hobbit, but rather a knife for a Gondolin elf. This did not impress a certain person or persons, who insisted that, even as a knife, it was "*way*" too bulky for a real knife. In light of these continued claims that the weapon was an unrealistic representation of a scaled-up knife, I therefore invited readers to do appropriate scaling and get a real idea of what the weapon would really look like in the hands of a Gondolin elf. By scaling down the knife by 1.8 on all dimensions, and placing it again in Elijah's hand, one gets an idea of what it would look like with a 6.5 foot elf holding it instead of a 42-inch hobbit. I believe that, far from looking bulky and unwieldy, it would look remarkably long, thin, and slender. I actually believe that, even as a shortsword, the weapon is not unreasonable in design. Real short-swords have often had broad or leaf-shaped blades. They could be broader than longswords, since one did not need as much leverage to swing them. I have since discovered that, historically, short-swords as well as knives have had central ridges. The grip appears a little wide for Frodo's hand (as it should!) but in this picture the impression is exaggerated by the fact that Frodo is not even attempting to wrap his hand around the blade in a firm grip, but rather holding it lightly in his fingers with his thumb running up the blade. -- John Whelan ###### From: ds50.geo@yahoo.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 2 Jun 2001 11:52:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 8 Message-ID: <7a9edd20.0106021052.4d27c17b@posting.google.com> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.54.54.222 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991507923 22188 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2001 18:52:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jun 2001 18:52:03 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38100 "Severian" wrote in message news:... > Its funny how one of the best knives in history doesn't look like a standard > knife or sword. That would be a Gurkha knife. Well, that's doesn't entirely follow the point I was trying to make. Gurkha knives have an unusual look, true, but they are effective. My point was that a lot of modern weapon desgins aren't relying upo combat research, and so are ineffective. ###### From: ds50.geo@yahoo.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 2 Jun 2001 11:55:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 8 Message-ID: <7a9edd20.0106021055.15170e3d@posting.google.com> References: <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.54.54.222 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991508116 22209 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2001 18:55:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jun 2001 18:55:16 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38093 ottoyuhr@cs.com (Ottoyuhr) wrote in message news:<20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com>... > David Sulger wrote: > > > I'll bet that the prop of said mithril coat won't be made of aluminum, which I > suspect might have been the original mithril Some people (including myself) think mithril might have actually been titanium. ###### Lines: 21 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 02 Jun 2001 19:00:47 GMT References: <010620011149273654%zigi@ravenland.com> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010602150047.12248.00002175@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38074 >> Actually you are, or, to be more precise, you are failing to adequately >> realize >> what the difference in scale really means. > >But I'm not arguing scale. I'm arguing that the weapon, in and of >itself, regardless of scale, looks like what it is, a movie prop. But I do believe you were saying something rather more than that. You were saying, I believe, that it does *not* look like what it is intended to represent -- namely a functional weapon. However, arguments that you made intended to support this judgment appear to indicate that you do not know enough about functional weapons for this opinion to hold much weight. But I will concede that you are probably right about it actually being a movie prop. It seems somewhat unlikely that Jackson was somehow able to dig up the genuine article :). What ever happened to Sting anyway? Did Frodo leave it with Sam? -- John Whelan ###### From: ds50.geo@yahoo.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 2 Jun 2001 12:05:33 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 22 Message-ID: <7a9edd20.0106021105.63e8bac0@posting.google.com> References: <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <20010601155430.02690.00001961@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.54.55.51 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991508733 22957 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2001 19:05:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jun 2001 19:05:33 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38107 nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message news:<20010601155430.02690.00001961@ng-fa1.news.cs.com>... > David Sulger wrote: > > >Well, that's the problem when you have 20th century artists designing > >weapons for film. They have absolutely no idea how the weapon is > >supposed to be used, so they design something that looks ridiculous to > >those who have such knowledge. Add to that the silly desire to make > >it look different: the designers don't want it to have a classical > >look, so they pull a really stupid design out of their asses. What > >they don't realize, is that historical weapons looked the way they > >did, not because the warriors liked the way they looked, but because > >they _worked_. In warfare, your life depended on your weapon. If you > >were stuck wielding a piece of crap, you were pretty much screwed. > > Is this commentary supposed to have some relevance to the weapon actually > pictured? No. I was speaking in general. I do agree with your point about scaling. We would need to see what Sting looks like in relation to the human characters to really see how big or small it is. ###### Lines: 70 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 02 Jun 2001 20:12:40 GMT References: <1ySR6.57117$t12.4577411@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010602161240.12248.00002179@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38075 Conrad Dunkerson wrote: >> I would estimate from this picture that the actual blade of the >> prop in Elijah's hands is only about 22", >I don't know how tall Wood is, so it is hard to estimate but I'd put >the blade at over two feet unless Wood is around 5' tall. Wood is actually 5'6" according to the Internet Movie Database, but my estimate of 22" for the literal prop is based on his being of average height (5'9"). Of course, it does not matter what you assume Wood's *actual* height to be, because what we are really interested in what the blade would seem like for a 42" hobbit or a 78"Gondolin elf. Once I obtained the 22" figure I resized the blade for a 42" hobbit by multiplying it by 42/69 and obtained 13.4". Had I correctly assumed Wood to be 66" instead of 69", I would have estimated 21" for the prop, and resized it by multiplying by 42/66, thus reaching the same result. Multiplying the 22" result by 42/78 obtains a result of slightly under 12" for the blade. If an person of average height (5'9") were to hold such a facsimile of "Sting" in his hand, this would simulate how the 13.4" version would look in the hands of the person it was designed to be used by (Gondolin Elf). It seems to me odd that you have chosen to estimate the blade in comparison to Wood's arm. The fact that he is holding his arm TOWARDS the camera, while the blade is held broadside to our view, would seem to make such comparison hopeless. My own method of estimating the prop's length was as follows: I measured the blade length precisely as it appears in the flat picture, and applied this measure to Elijah's torso. I discovered that the length obtained was the same (in the flat picture) as the distance from Elijah's belt to his eye. Measuring this distance on myself (I am 69.5") obtained a figure of about 22". I failed to adjust for Elijah's shortness, nor did I adjust for the fact that the blade is much closer to the camera. So, while I recognize that my measurement is not precise, it seems to me more likely that I have overestimated than otherwise. >In any >case, a short sword ought to be about 1.5x the length of the forearm >of the wielder (including hilt) - about 23" total for a person of >average height... I won't say that this terminology is unreasonable, merely that it is not engraved in stone. There is no hard and fast definition of the term "Short-sword". It is certainly reasonable to apply the term "short-sword" to a 23" weapon with a 17-18", but in my experience, any weapon much shorter than this typically get labeled as "knives" or "daggers". My own arbitrary classification is that a sword-blade of 18-24 inches is "short". Since blade-length can be as long as 40" for one-handed weapons and 50" for two-handed ones, this usage seems to me reasonable. Anything under 18" I consider "knife" territory. Others need not use language to conform to my standards, but they would be hard put to argue that either my usage (or Jackson's interpretation) of the term "short sword" is unreasonable. There is no clearly defined historical "short-sword". The term merely gets applied to swords that are shorter than what one considers normal. An Anglo-saxon warrior, for instance, would consider a Roman gladius to be "short" as "swerds" go, but of course a Roman would consider it a perfectly normal "gladius". >while this weapon is longer than Wood's entire arm; >making it much closer to a broadsword than a short-sword. Many swords that are relatively "short" are also relatively "broad". I have never found a precise definition for the term "broadsword" either. Ostensibly, it is a heavy broad-bladed sword to be used primarily for cutting rather than thrusting. Sting, as pictured, seems designed for both purposes, and not nearly so broad and heavy as many other swords. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 32 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 02 Jun 2001 20:36:50 GMT References: <6u4ru1l0oa.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010602163650.12248.00002180@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38073 Neil Franklin wrote: >> They also don't fit elvish INTENT TO HURT THINGS WITH THESE >> SWORDS!! Does Jackson know that a thick edge doesn't cut? > >Aparently not. Or he intends them purely for stabbing. I'm amazed at your powers of perception. Can you really tell whether a blade is sharp by looking at it broadsides in dim light? Stare as I might at that picture, I just cannot tell. Logic tells me that, since it is only a prop, and since Jackson would probably prefer to avoid the headache of having some extra accidentally beheaded, the sword is probably not actually very sharp. But I am also willing to bet that the edge could be sharper than a razor, and you would not be able to tell the difference from what is shown. >But why then so wide, as pointed and gently widening goes in better. >Simply bad design. And bronze age is not exactly known for being the >most developed technology. Bronze-age swords were of course of excellent design, and were made the way they were because the design was ideally suited for how it was intended to be used, the conditions of the times, and the armor it was intended to cope with. Iron and steel technology made longer weapons feasible, and advances in armor made heavier weapons necessary -- and forced shorter weapons to specialize as stabbing weapons in order to have hope of penetrating (with some daggers dispensing with the edge altogether) -- but the old design remains good for any short weapon that is intended to cut as well as pierce. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 86 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 02 Jun 2001 22:36:58 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010602183658.12248.00002188@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38078 > >"Nystulc" wrote in message >news:20010601121656.20500.00002134@ng-fg1.news.cs.com... > >> Furthermore, 30 inches or longer has been typical blade-length for >> the sword (in English culture) since the time of the Anglo-Saxons. > >Hrrrmmm... in my experience that's 30 inches TOTAL length - not >blade length. And I'd argue that the weapon Wood is shown holding >IS 30 inches in total length. No. 30" is the length of the blade according to Charles Ashdown in "European Arms and Armor", page 51. "Swords were essentially cavalry weapons among the Anglo-Saxons, and were not carried by any person beneath the rank of thane. The earliest of those found in England have no quillons or cross-pieces, but merely pommel, grip, and blade. The latter was long, straight, rounded at the point, and double-edged, 30 inches long and 2 inches wide at the hilt; the grip was of wood with but little swell. The total length is generally about three feet. Irish swords of the same period are about six inches shorter;" He's talking Dark Ages here, of course. When discussing swords of the Middle Ages, he gives the length as "generally 40 inches" for the sword blade, though I suspect that in this case he has carelessly substituted blade length for total length. In any event, illustrations from the Middle Ages regularly show knights wielding swords that are significantly longer than their arms, and wearing scabbards which hang from their hips to their ankles (implying a blade length of about three feet in many cases). With regard to "Bastard Swords" (AKA "hand-and-half" swords) of the late middle ages, he gives the blade length as 40", but they could be almost 50" in some cases. He gives examples of Two-Handed swords of as much as 6 feet total length (72") with 51" devoted to the blade.. Regarding swords of earlier times, he gives the bronze-aged *blade* between one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half feet (typically 2 feet). The Roman "gladius" was shorter, having a total length of two feet, and so presumably with a blade of about 18". This definitely qualifies as a "short sword", and was in use by the common foot-soldier. The Frankish sword of the later Merovingian period had about 30" total length. Since the grip is pictured as being remarkably small, this still represents a blade of just over two feet. Not only was the Roman gladius a "short" sword by standards of later English culture, but it scarcely qualified as a "swerd" at all. The term "swerd" was used for the knightly weapon in use by the aristocracy, and not for oversized knives used by grunts. Other terms were used for lesser blades. Ashcroft mentions the "cultellus" (whence "cutlass") as a "short sword" for use by foot-soldiers, but does not give its length. The "cinquedea" he describes as a "dagger or short sword" with a two-edged BLADE! averageing 18 to 20 inches in length, and four inches wide at the base. Though this clearly outmatches the Roman "gladius", Ashcroft remarks that "it may be viewed as a type of dagger". When discussing military daggers of the period, Ashcroft casually mentions an example with a 15-inch blade, which he does not even think of classifying as a sword (short or otherwise). >Still, I think this is one of the more nit-picky points... I do >think Sting is a bit oversized here but don't particularly have a >problem with it. Nor do I object to the design per se... it isn't >practical nor at all how I'd pictured Sting, but I can't fault >Jackson for not being (or hiring) a truly competent weapons designer >so long as the arms do not look ridiculous when viewed from a >'laymans' persepective. That ludicrous helmet now... if that THING >actually makes it on film I'll object to the sheer stupidity of it, >but Sting passes the 'smell test' - it isn't 'exactly right' or even >properly designed, but it is not so obviously bad as to be laughable >in the eyes of the common viewer. I suspect that Jackson did indeed hire a competent weapon-designer, and has presented us with a realistic rendition of a dagger scaled up from elf to hobbit proportions. I concede that Sting, as pictured, does not "look" exactly right in this picture at casual glance, but I believe part of this is a trick of perspective. He is, after all, extending the blade towards the camera with his arm. I have found other pictures of Frodo holding what appears to be the same prop, and it does not look at all oversized: http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/1107 http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/818 For comparison, here is the original picture being discussed: http://www.fantasy-scifi.net/jrr_tolkien/filmy/flotr_ex.php?obr=3 So what you think? ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20010602183658.12248.00002188@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 70 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:38:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.89 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991525133 12.79.23.89 (Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:38:53 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:38:53 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38027 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010602183658.12248.00002188@ng-ba1.news.cs.com... > "Swords were essentially cavalry weapons among the Anglo-Saxons, > and were not carried by any person beneath the rank of thane. The > earliest of those found in England have no quillons or cross > -pieces, but merely pommel, grip, and blade. The latter was long, > straight, rounded at the point, and double-edged, 30 inches long > and 2 inches wide at the hilt; the grip was of wood with but little > swell. The total length is generally about three feet. Irish > swords of the same period are about six inches shorter;" A little bit earlier than the period I was referring to, but; > When discussing swords of the Middle Ages, he gives the length as > "generally 40 inches" for the sword blade, though I suspect that in > this case he has carelessly substituted blade length for total > length. I'd have to agree.... and it is a stretch even then. In my experience the typical european sword of this period was around 31" long. There were longer blades of course - up to about 40" total length, but it wasn't the most commonplace until the late period. I'm 6' 3" and none of my twelve swords are longer than 36" (granted, several of them are not correctly sized for me). The most 'historically accurate' of these are two Toledo broadswords at about 32" each. > I suspect that Jackson did indeed hire a competent weapon-designer, > and has presented us with a realistic rendition of a dagger scaled > up from elf to hobbit proportions. The fact that the hilt is overlong in comparison to the blade from a 'short sword' perspective DOES support the idea of a 'long knife' design. However, the wavy blade bothers me as it was not typical except for early period weapons and for some reason I feel sure that Sting should have a straight edge (I'll have to see if I can find a reference on that). I also place more emphasis on overall length while you've been concentrating on blade length... given that the hilt is proportionally larger than any typical 'short sword' in this image that would serve to push the blade length closer to an appropriate size. > I concede that Sting, as pictured, does not "look" exactly right in > this picture at casual glance, but I believe part of this is a > trick of perspective. He is, after all, extending the blade > towards the camera with his arm. I have found other pictures of > Frodo holding what appears to be the same prop, and it does not > look at all oversized: > http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/1107 > http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/818 The first of these is better overall and you are likely right about the blade having been extended towards the camera. However, the smaller scale of the image also serves to reduce the severity of the discrepancy. In this image Sting looks much closer to what I think of as a 'short sword' (the Roman Gladius at about 23") proportional to 'Frodo', but still a bit oversized. PS: You asked in another post (too many to reply to all) how I'd estimated arm length... Wood's upper arm from shoulder to elbow was visible in clear profile and typically the lower arm from elbow to knuckles of a clenched fist are roughly equal to the length of the upper arm from shoulder to elbow (should be accurate to within an inch). Meanwhile, 'Sting' was about 2 1/3 times the length of Wood's upper arm and thus 'longer'. ###### From: Tiffany Case Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:57:48 -0500 Organization: none Lines: 10 Message-ID: <3B198B8C.88034D3D@yahoo.com> References: <20010601233446.22859.00002261@ng-xc1.news.cs.com> Reply-To: person53705@yahoo.com NNTP-Posting-Host: t-16-181-85.dialup.wisc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.doit.wisc.edu 991529862 10800 144.92.181.85 (3 Jun 2001 00:57:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@doit.wisc.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jun 2001 00:57:42 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!loops.cs.wisc.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:37990 Ottoyuhr wrote: > Meteoric iron is also extremely > rare; primitive cultures, "prior to the development of iron mining and > smithing," would probably have worshipped an iron-containing meteorite > instead of making it into weaponry. Ah, you're an anthropologist, I see. : ) -TC ###### From: Pythoness Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 18:01:48 -0700 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 40 Message-ID: <020620011801482743%zigi@ravenland.com> References: <010620011149273654%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010602150047.12248.00002175@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k-049.efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!uchinews!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!loops.cs.wisc.edu!news.cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!zigi Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38051 In article <20010602150047.12248.00002175@ng-ba1.news.cs.com>, Nystulc wrote: > >> Actually you are, or, to be more precise, you are failing to adequately > >> realize > >> what the difference in scale really means. > > > >But I'm not arguing scale. I'm arguing that the weapon, in and of > >itself, regardless of scale, looks like what it is, a movie prop. > > But I do believe you were saying something rather more than that. You were > saying, I believe, that it does *not* look like what it is intended to > represent -- namely a functional weapon. I am saying that, within itself, I do not think that the knife looks real. Period. To some extent this is a function of its silly decoration and front-heavy appearance. I judge it to have rounded edges by the way the light reflects. > However, arguments that you made intended to support this judgment appear to > indicate that you do not know enough about functional weapons for this opinion > to hold much weight. Hm. Worked with a metalsmith who made fabulous hunting and fighting knives for two years. Not, I admit, in the capacity of a designer, but I have some experience in the field, and an interest in edged weapons. I'll admit I don't like the "look" of bronze weapons, which seems to be basis for this one, but I also don't think the smiths of Gondolin were using bronze... > > But I will concede that you are probably right about it actually being a movie > prop. It seems somewhat unlikely that Jackson was somehow able to dig up the > genuine article :). What ever happened to Sting anyway? Did Frodo leave it > with Sam? Good question, actually--I'd say that's a good guess if there isn't any other evidence. zg ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <010620011149273654%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010602150047.12248.00002175@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 12 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:46:34 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.89 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991536394 12.79.23.89 (Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:46:34 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:46:34 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38034 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010602150047.12248.00002175@ng-ba1.news.cs.com... > What ever happened to Sting anyway? Did Frodo leave it with Sam? Frodo was forever giving Sting to Sam only to have Sam insist on giving it back... meanwhile Bilbo forgot he'd done so before and gave it to Frodo again. Somehow I think it either ended up in the museum gathering dust again or went oversea with Frodo. ###### From: Skylar Thompson Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 22:24:03 -0500 Organization: UTUMNO Lines: 24 Sender: skylar@utumno.attglobal.net Message-ID: <3B19ADD3.C2F20FD6@utumno.attglobal.net> References: <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0106021055.15170e3d@posting.google.com> Reply-To: skylar@attglobal.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i586) X-Accept-Language: en, es NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.182.249 X-Trace: 3 Jun 2001 04:36:39 GMT, 32.100.182.249 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.us.prserv.net!prserv.net!news3.prserv.net!rhino_house.attglobal.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38071 David Sulger wrote: > > ottoyuhr@cs.com (Ottoyuhr) wrote in message news:<20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com>... > > David Sulger wrote: > > > > > > I'll bet that the prop of said mithril coat won't be made of aluminum, which I > > suspect might have been the original mithril > > Some people (including myself) think mithril might have actually been titanium. I personally think that even titanium is too weak to be mithril. When the Fellowship was caught the burial chamber of Balin by orcs, Frodo was stabbed by an orc with enough force, as Aragorn says, `to skewer a wild boar'. Afterwards, when Frodo was examined by Aragorn, no mention is made of any damage whatsoever being done to the mithril coat. AFAIK, even titanium cannot be that strong. IMHO, it is some unknown metal of the Dwarves that has no modern counterpart. -- --Skylar Thompson (skylar@attglobal.net) `All that is gold does not glitter/Not all those who wander are lost The old that is strong does not wither/Deep roots are not reached by the frost From the ashes a fire shall be woken/A light from the shadows shall spring Renewed shall be blade that was broken/The crownless again shall be king.' ###### From: Donald Shepherd Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 21:01:49 +1000 Organization: Chicken Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <010620010102201340%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010601141036.20500.00002145@ng-fg1.news.cs.com> <7bYR6.192$Ji.20079@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <1j5S6.484$Ji.70086@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.46.23 X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 991562551 28803 192.168.46.23 (3 Jun 2001 10:02:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jun 2001 10:02:31 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38060 In article <1j5S6.484$Ji.70086@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net says... > "Donald Shepherd" wrote in > message news:MPG.15830ebdf64340819896e1@news.uq.edu.au... > > > Actually Elijah would be scaled down less than Sting, because he > > isn't the same height as a Gondolin Elf, rather a 19 year old > > human. > > Um... ok, somehow this idea just isn't getting through. > > For the film. They will take the image of Elijah Wood holding Sting. > They will scale this image down. They will then superimpose it on > the scene with the full size actors. OK, now that I bother to waste some my download quota on the image, I can see why you have problems with the size of it. -- Donald Shepherd Apathy killed the cat. ###### Lines: 85 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 03 Jun 2001 17:35:31 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010603133531.07772.00002341@ng-fz1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38154 >"Nystulc" wrote in message >news:20010602183658.12248.00002188@ng-ba1.news.cs.com... > >> "Swords were essentially cavalry weapons among the Anglo-Saxons, >> and were not carried by any person beneath the rank of thane. The >> earliest of those found in England have no quillons or cross >> -pieces, but merely pommel, grip, and blade. The latter was long, >> straight, rounded at the point, and double-edged, 30 inches long >> and 2 inches wide at the hilt; the grip was of wood with but little >> swell. The total length is generally about three feet. Irish >> swords of the same period are about six inches shorter;" > >A little bit earlier than the period I was referring to, but; The sword of the Middle-Ages was descended from the Anglo-saxon and Viking swords. Improvements of metalurgy would make longer blades possible, whereas improvements of armor would make larger weapons more necessary and practical. Dark-ages swords were typically limited in their length because the poor quality of the iron caused them to bend too much in response to blows. Ashcroft says that both grip and blade increased in length as time passed, and I have no reason to doubt this. >> When discussing swords of the Middle Ages, he gives the length as >> "generally 40 inches" for the sword blade, though I suspect that in >> this case he has carelessly substituted blade length for total >> length. > >I'd have to agree.... and it is a stretch even then. Hardly a stretch. Seeing as the Dark-ages Anglo-saxon sweord was 36" total (which Ashcroft documents with several specific examples) it would not surprise me if the sword of the Middle ages was increased from this by about 3" in the blade and 1" in the hilt. (Ashcroft asserts that there was a gradual lenghening of both blade and hilt). Keep in mind that there is a long-term trend here towards longer and heavier weaponry -- one that finally culminated in the bastard swords and two handed swords of the late middle ages (50" blades and 22" hilts at their greatest). Ashcroft provides one specific example of a sword from the Middle Ages, which he evidently regards as typical. The blade is 33", the hilt is almost 6", and the total nearly 39" -- only a tad shy of the 40" he claims is the general rule. Numerous illustrations also support him. He reproduces dozens of detailed engravings from tombs, in which the knight, in full equipment, has his reclining form engraved on a brass plaque. His sword, affixed to his hip by a belt, lies beside him horizontally. The pommel of the sword typically rises to the level of his elbow OR ABOVE, whereas the bottom tip of the scabbard reaches BELOW the level of the foot, such that it would scrape the ground even if he were to stand on the tip of his armoured booties (as he appears to be doing). The scabbard is clearly affixed to the hip in such a manner as to ensure it will hang at an angle, rather than straight downwards, were the knight actually standing. Assuming average height for the reclining form, it can easily be concluded that most of these swords are about 40" total length or even longer. The detail of the scabbard extending below the level of the feet seems to me particularly striking as something that is unlikely to be an artistic embelishment. (In anticipation of a possible objection, I might note that there is no reason to assume that medieval knights were unusually short by modern standards. These were artistocrats and members of the warrior class, not underfed peasants. The common soldier might be short though, and if he had a "short sword", if might not look so short to him.) An illustration from another source of "a French Sword of the 12th and 13th centuries", appears, if the scale given is correct, to show an 8" hilt and a 31-inch blade, for a total of about 39". >In my >experience the typical european sword of this period was around >31" long. There were longer blades of course - up to about 40" >total length, but it wasn't the most commonplace until the late >period. I'm 6' 3" and none of my twelve swords are longer than 36" >(granted, several of them are not correctly sized for me). I'm confused as to what these numbers refer to. You appear to be talking about "blades", but then you mention "total length". > The most >'historically accurate' of these are two Toledo broadswords at about >32" each. From what period are they from (and are you talking blades or total length)? -- John Whelan ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: tbarrie@cs.toronto.edu (Trevor Barrie) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dvp.cs.toronto.edu Message-ID: <2001Jun3.160427.24159@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> Organization: CSLab, University of Toronto References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <2001Jun1.171920.29598@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> Date: 3 Jun 2001 20:04:27 GMT Lines: 15 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!torn!utnut!utcsri!cs.toronto.edu!tbarrie Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38262 In article , Conrad Dunkerson wrote: >A vambrace is a piece of plate armour covering the lower arm. It is >not a suit of full plate, but it IS plate armor and therefor Tolkien >indicated the stuff existed in Middle Earth... It seems to me that a helm is just as much a piece of plate armour, and references to those are plentiful in LotR. I thought the debate was about the existence of full plate. >at that, the rest of Imrahil's armor MIGHT have been plate as well, we >really don't know. I thought I found a reference to his wearing mail while reading Book Five last night, but I can't locate it again this morning. ###### From: kurgan@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 21:00:10 GMT Organization: Legion of Immortals Lines: 35 Message-ID: <3b1aa492.1094693@news.cc.tut.fi> References: <010620011149273654%zigi@ravenland.com> <20010602150047.12248.00002175@ng-ba1.news.cs.com> <020620011801482743%zigi@ravenland.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: a34c.mtalo.ton.tut.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: baker.cc.tut.fi 991602024 24979 193.166.88.122 (3 Jun 2001 21:00:24 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jun 2001 21:00:24 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!newsrouter.euroconnect.net!news.clinet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38208 Pythoness wrote: >In article <20010602150047.12248.00002175@ng-ba1.news.cs.com>, Nystulc > wrote: > >> >> Actually you are, or, to be more precise, you are failing to adequately >> >> realize >> >> what the difference in scale really means. >> > >> >But I'm not arguing scale. I'm arguing that the weapon, in and of >> >itself, regardless of scale, looks like what it is, a movie prop. >> >> But I do believe you were saying something rather more than that. You were >> saying, I believe, that it does *not* look like what it is intended to >> represent -- namely a functional weapon. > >I am saying that, within itself, I do not think that the knife looks >real. Period. To some extent this is a function of its silly >decoration and front-heavy appearance. I judge it to have rounded >edges by the way the light reflects. Please see for example http://www.bladeart.com/reif_atrox_purple_2.jpg or http://www.bladeart.com/artists/allen_blade/talenite.jpg for knives that most assuredly have sharp edges. Notice how the "edge" tapers in a space of only a couple of millimeters, and how light makes those edges look rounded, too. -- 'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO than to fade away!' | kurgan@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:59:47 +0100 Lines: 25 Message-ID: <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-80.georgia.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 991609240 21349 62.137.61.80 (3 Jun 2001 23:00:40 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jun 2001 23:00:40 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38234 "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote in message news:AuRR6.57025$t12.4568973@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in > message news:9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > Tolkien only ever mentions mail in his stories: plate armour is not > > mentioned at all. > > "And he held the bright-burnished vambrace that was upon his arm > before her cold lips, and behold! a little mist was laid on it hardly > to be seen." > RotK, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields But: "Tirelessly he [Gandalf] strode from Citadel to Gate, from north to south about the wall; and with him went the Prince of Dol Amroth in his shining mail." (RotK, The Siege of Gondor) Jamie Jamie ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 15 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: <1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:06:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.22.217 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991609597 12.79.22.217 (Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:06:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:06:37 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38222 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > "Tirelessly he [Gandalf] strode from Citadel to Gate, from north to > south about the wall; and with him went the Prince of Dol Amroth in > his shining mail." (RotK, The Siege of Gondor) So, shining mail and a plate vambrace... plate and mail as was common in the period before full plate came into usage. This would probably suggest that full plate wasn't used (as Imrahil would be amongst the most likely to have it if anyone did), but plate armor in general is not a contradiction of the texts. ###### From: "Jamie Armstrong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:24:23 +0100 Lines: 25 Message-ID: <9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-80.georgia.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news5.svr.pol.co.uk 991610716 4353 62.137.61.80 (3 Jun 2001 23:25:16 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jun 2001 23:25:16 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38216 "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote in message news:1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in > message news:9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > "Tirelessly he [Gandalf] strode from Citadel to Gate, from north to > > south about the wall; and with him went the Prince of Dol Amroth in > > his shining mail." (RotK, The Siege of Gondor) > > So, shining mail and a plate vambrace... plate and mail as was common > in the period before full plate came into usage. This would probably > suggest that full plate wasn't used (as Imrahil would be amongst the > most likely to have it if anyone did), but plate armor in general is > not a contradiction of the texts. Not literally, but the use of breast plates etc does appear to be contradicted strongly by the text. That's what my objections are to. Every mention of the primary armour of the combatants in Middle Earth is of mail, not plate. Simply arguing that the text *doesn't* say plate armour wasn't used as primary armour is hardly a strong argument IMO. Jamie ###### From: Donald Shepherd Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:18:12 +1000 Organization: Chicken Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.46.23 X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 991617533 28376 192.168.46.23 (4 Jun 2001 01:18:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 2001 01:18:53 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!feeder.via.net!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38254 In article <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jamie-Armstrong@dirt- pixie.freeserve.co.uk says... > > "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote in message > news:AuRR6.57025$t12.4568973@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in > > message news:9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > > Tolkien only ever mentions mail in his stories: plate armour is not > > > mentioned at all. > > > > "And he held the bright-burnished vambrace that was upon his arm > > before her cold lips, and behold! a little mist was laid on it hardly > > to be seen." > > RotK, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields > > But: > > "Tirelessly he [Gandalf] strode from Citadel to Gate, from north to south > about the wall; and with him went the Prince of Dol Amroth in his shining > mail." (RotK, The Siege of Gondor) Can't plate armour be referred to plate mail as well? At least, that is the more common usage I have encountered. -- Donald Shepherd Apathy killed the cat. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:40:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.22.217 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991618844 12.79.22.217 (Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:40:44 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:40:44 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38214 "Donald Shepherd" wrote in message news:MPG.15857ecdbff89d5c9896f0@news.uq.edu.au... > Can't plate armour be referred to plate mail as well? At least, > that is the more common usage I have encountered. The form is sometimes used (especially since Gary Gygax adopted it in Dungeons and Dragons) but historically would refer to interlocking plates rather than full plate armor... 'mail' historically was used of any interlocking armor whereas Gygax used it of ANY sort of armor. Historically, something called 'plate-mail' would be small plates linked together... rather than Gygax's 'platemail' which is a misnomer for full plate armour. All that said, it is unlikely that Tolkien meant plate when he referred to 'mail'... the term was most commonly synonymous with 'chain' armour. So, I suppose it is possible that he meant a sort of plate armour (though very unlikely), but still not full plate. ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:08:07 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <7a9edd20.0105311019.177c5f74@posting.google.com> <20010531190940.24129.00000200@ng-ca1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0106021055.15170e3d@posting.google.com> <3B19ADD3.C2F20FD6@utumno.attglobal.net> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 25 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38255 "Skylar Thompson" wrote in message news:3B19ADD3.C2F20FD6@utumno.attglobal.net... > David Sulger wrote: > > Some people (including myself) think mithril might have actually been titanium. > > I personally think that even titanium is too weak to be mithril. When the Fellowship was caught > the burial chamber of Balin by orcs, Frodo was stabbed by an orc with enough force, as Aragorn > says, `to skewer a wild boar'. Afterwards, when Frodo was examined by Aragorn, no mention is made > of any damage whatsoever being done to the mithril coat. AFAIK, even titanium cannot be that strong. > IMHO, it is some unknown metal of the Dwarves that has no modern counterpart. > > -- > --Skylar Thompson (skylar@attglobal.net) Many times mithyl is refered to in mix with silver. This may be the way that the dwarfs strengthen the metal. ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:28:54 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 18 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!feed.textport.net!sn-xit-04!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38251 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk... > > Not literally, but the use of breast plates etc does appear to be > contradicted strongly by the text. That's what my objections are to. Every > mention of the primary armour of the combatants in Middle Earth is of mail, > not plate. Simply arguing that the text *doesn't* say plate armour wasn't > used as primary armour is hardly a strong argument IMO. > > Jamie > "platemail" "scalemale" "ringmail" "chainmail".... mail dosent necisarily mean chainmail. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 04 Jun 2001 12:54:34 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 28 Message-ID: <6uhexwcy6t.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 991652074 614 10.0.3.2 (4 Jun 2001 10:54:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 2001 10:54:34 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38288 "Ashford Wyrd" writes: > "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in > message news:9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > Not literally, but the use of breast plates etc does appear to be > > contradicted strongly by the text. That's what my objections are to. Every > > mention of the primary armour of the combatants in Middle Earth is of > mail, > > not plate. Simply arguing that the text *doesn't* say plate armour wasn't > > used as primary armour is hardly a strong argument IMO. > > "platemail" "scalemale" "ringmail" "chainmail".... mail dosent necisarily > mean chainmail. But mail has to be made of many small pieces of metal. Usually interlocked rings, but possibly scales, or _many_ _small_ plates. The word mail comes from latin macula (mesh). Definitely never full large plates as in the pictures being critisized. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### From: gary4books@yahoo.com (Gary E. Masters) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 4 Jun 2001 09:34:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 10 Message-ID: <38aeacaa.0106040834.43be3315@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.77.181.9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991672469 21521 127.0.0.1 (4 Jun 2001 16:34:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 2001 16:34:29 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38307 Robert Whelan wrote in message news:... > Frodo is regarding it with the > proper respect due an elvish blade...this may ultimately be > the more important factor. I saw the Startrek exhibit at the Smithsonian about ten years ago and the communicator and phaser were just blocks of wood painted with a few pieces of metal attached. It gave me more respect for the acting of the cast. ###### From: "Severian" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> <6uhexwcy6t.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 16 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:36:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.179.104 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tx.home.com 991679780 65.13.179.104 (Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:36:20 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:36:20 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.tx.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38456 > But mail has to be made of many small pieces of metal. Usually interlocked > rings, but possibly scales, or _many_ _small_ plates. > > The word mail comes from latin macula (mesh). mail: (mal), n 1. flexible armor of metal rings or plates 2. any protective armor, as the shell of certain animals (origin OE maille - one of the rings of which such armor is composed) According to the definition rings or plates would be acceptable. No size is given to either the rings or the plates. Though the origin of the word which is English not latin would suggest that rings are intended. ###### From: "Severian" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <38aeacaa.0106040834.43be3315@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 19 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:38:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.179.104 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tx.home.com 991679915 65.13.179.104 (Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:38:35 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:38:35 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.tx.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38451 "Gary E. Masters" wrote in message news:38aeacaa.0106040834.43be3315@posting.google.com... > Robert Whelan wrote in message news:... > > > Frodo is regarding it with the > > proper respect due an elvish blade...this may ultimately be > > the more important factor. > > I saw the Startrek exhibit at the Smithsonian about ten years ago and > the communicator and phaser were just blocks of wood painted with a > few pieces of metal attached. It gave me more respect for the acting > of the cast. Bravo, Once again it all comes down to the old adage "It's not the size of the sword, its how you use it" ###### From: nystulc@cs.com (John B. Whelan) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 4 Jun 2001 18:29:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <2001Jun1.171920.29598@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> <2001Jun3.160427.24159@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.49.148.250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991704563 27934 127.0.0.1 (5 Jun 2001 01:29:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Jun 2001 01:29:23 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38480 tbarrie@cs.toronto.edu (Trevor Barrie) wrote in message news:<2001Jun3.160427.24159@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>... > It seems to me that a helm is just as much a piece of plate armour, and > references to those are plentiful in LotR. I thought the debate was > about the existence of full plate. The existence of a helm is, of course, evidence of nothing. Metal helmets have existed since the bronze age, and is generally worn by anyone who wears any armour at all. A helmet and shield might be all the armour that a warrior wore. Other items of plate armour have also existed since the bronze age, most specifically breast-plates and greaves (which are armor for the lower leg, where the shield does not protect). No doubt folks occasionally wore bronze bracers as well. Chain mail, however, is considered superior to these early forms of protection. Rohan posessed chain mail. Gondor, presumably, has at least as high a level of development as Rohan. If Gondor used plate, presumably this was a form of plate more advanced than simple chainmail -- either full plate or chainmail reinforced with plate ("Plate and Mail"). I'm not sure if the debate here is about the existence of "full plate". I personally have seen no pictures of warriors wearing what is clearly full, interlocking plate armour, as opposed to plate-and-mail. If someone can point out such a picture, please do so. But bear in mind that plate-and-mail, in its more advanced forms, can look alot like full plate armour, especially when viewed from the front. In any event, historically the development of full plate armour followed fairly quickly -- within a few generations -- after the development of plate-and-mail. The level of technology necessary for one implies the capability to produce the other as well -- provided only that there is a military need for it. If Gondor has plate-and-mail, as apparently they do, and have had mail for thousands of years without discarding it, then it if fair to presume that they have tried full plate and found it not suited to their needs -- or that their further advances in armor design caused full-plate to be abandoned in preference for superior forms of plate-and-mail combinations. -- John Whelan ###### From: Legolas Greenleaf, Founder of ElvenMUD Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: References: <38aeacaa.0106040834.43be3315@posting.google.com> Organization: Rivendell Enterprises X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.30 Lines: 16 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:36:24 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.231.100.236 X-Trace: news.uswest.net 991705106 63.231.100.236 (Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:38:26 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:38:26 CDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38435 On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:38:35 GMT, Severian completely failed to help me find a new quoting string.. > Bravo, Once again it all comes down to the old adage "It's not the size of > the sword, its how you use it" This is usually the mantra of those with undersized, ah, swords. ;) -- ********** * SPC Bryan S. Slick, spambotssuckbryan@m1a1hokie.net * (opinions above are mine, not the US Army's) * * "For those who preserve it, freedom has * a flavor the protected will never know." ********** ###### From: nystulc@cs.com (John B. Whelan) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 4 Jun 2001 18:43:05 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.49.148.250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991705385 28031 127.0.0.1 (5 Jun 2001 01:43:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Jun 2001 01:43:05 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38471 "Jamie Armstrong" wrote in message news:<9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>... > > So, shining mail and a plate vambrace... plate and mail as was common > > in the period before full plate came into usage. This would probably > > suggest that full plate wasn't used (as Imrahil would be amongst the > > most likely to have it if anyone did), but plate armor in general is > > not a contradiction of the texts. > > Not literally, but the use of breast plates etc does appear to be > contradicted strongly by the text. How and where? The use of plate-and-mail strongly implies the use of breastplates attached to the chain hauberk for additional protection. It is difficult to imagine that someone who considered chain inadequate protection would rely on it entirely for the protection of his torso and his vitals. > That's what my objections are to. Every > mention of the primary armour of the combatants in Middle Earth is of mail, > not plate. A suit of plate-and-mail, even one which presents mostly plate to the naked eye, might reasonably be referred to as a suit of "mail". This usage is a little loose, perhaps, but Tolkien isn't quite a stickler using the word "mail" in its most narrow sense. He referred to farmer Gile's armour as "mail", though it is actually just reinforced leather, without actual interlocking rings. > Simply arguing that the text *doesn't* say plate armour wasn't > used as primary armour is hardly a strong argument IMO. You have mistaken where the burden of proof lies. It is on those who claim that Jackson's interpretation is unacceptable who must prove their case. -- John Whelan ###### Lines: 22 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 05 Jun 2001 07:18:44 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010605031844.26732.00002160@ng-bj1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38429 Some more thoughts on the implications of Imrahil's vambrace: If one is going to start reinforcing mail armour with plate, the forearm is a very unlikely place to begin. The most vulnerable spots are those bony areas, such as the knees, shoulders, and elbows, where flexible mesh is likely to provide little or no protection from a crushing blow. (The head will likewise need protection from a hard covering, but that goes without saying). Thus, these are the first areas you reinforce. This principle can be seen in Pauline Baynes illustration of the knight snickering at Farmer Giles. His elbows, shoulders, and knees are all provided with pieces of plate -- Ms. Baynes having evidently done her research. Thus, the fact that Imrahil has a plate vambrace implies he has plate on all the above areas as well. Otherwise his armor is very poorly designed, leaving the most vulnerable areas with the least protection. The likelyhood of a breastplate is rather less certain, but it would seem that one concerned about arrows piercing the mail on their arm would be even more concerned about the torso, and have a breastplate at least in the front. -- John Whelan ###### From: nystulc@cs.com (John B. Whelan) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 5 Jun 2001 08:50:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.105.41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991756246 4864 127.0.0.1 (5 Jun 2001 15:50:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Jun 2001 15:50:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38482 "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote in message news:... > > Can't plate armour be referred to plate mail as well? At least, > > that is the more common usage I have encountered. > > The form is sometimes used (especially since Gary Gygax adopted it > in Dungeons and Dragons) but historically would refer to interlocking > plates rather than full plate armor... 'mail' historically was used > of any interlocking armor whereas Gygax used it of ANY sort of armor. > Historically, something called 'plate-mail' would be small plates > linked together... rather than Gygax's 'platemail' which is a > misnomer for full plate armour. No. In the first edition Dungeon Masters Guide, Gygax defines "Plate Mail" as "Light chain with pieces of plate -- cuirass, shoulder pieces, elbow and knee guards, and greaves." He explicitly distinguishes it from "plate armor", for which additional optional rules were provided. (Note that Gygax makes no mention of vambraces, which imply an even more complete suit of plate than what he had in mind). > All that said, it is unlikely that Tolkien meant plate when he > referred to 'mail'... the term was most commonly synonymous with > 'chain' armour. So, I suppose it is possible that he meant a sort > of plate armour (though very unlikely), but still not full plate. Most likely it implies he was wearing "plate and mail", or what Gygax would call "plate mail", which can look alot like plate armour, especially when viewed from the front where the extra protection will be concentrated. Isildur, for instance, is shown in movie stills wearing a camail, which indicates his suit is plate-and-mail, not full plate armour (even setting aside the possibility that some of this "plate" reinforcement might actually be hardened leather.) No matter how much plate is worn, "full plate armour" does not occur until the wearer dispenses completely with his chain underwear, and relies entirely on the plate. -- John Whelan ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 25 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:42:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.23.83 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991788146 12.79.23.83 (Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:42:26 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:42:26 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!news.stealth.net!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38360 "John B. Whelan" wrote in message news:fd166f83.0106050750.1ebd57c@posting.google.com... > No. In the first edition Dungeon Masters Guide, Gygax > defines "Plate Mail" as "Light chain with pieces of plate -- > cuirass, shoulder pieces, elbow and knee guards, and greaves." He > explicitly distinguishes it from "plate armor", for which > additional optional rules were provided. (Note that Gygax makes > no mention of vambraces, which imply an even more complete suit of > plate than what he had in mind). Possibly so, but the 'Dungeon Masters Guide' was a product of 'AD&D' rather than 'D&D'... several years after the fact. My recollection is that until 'Unearthed Arcana' (just before AD&D >Second Edition<) ALL forms of non-leather armor were called 'mail' (Ringmail, Scalemail, Splitmail, et cetera) and only then were examples of 'full plate' (or further stages of development towards it) introduced... though they'd been shown in the artwork all the way back to the first D&D supplements... portraying 'platemail'. In any case, whatever Gygax's own level of understanding the fact remains that Dungeons and Dragons was the source of the now common idea that 'platemail' should be used in reference to full plate armour. ###### Lines: 52 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 06 Jun 2001 07:55:16 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38430 Conrad Dunkerson wrote: >Possibly so, but the 'Dungeon Masters Guide' was a product of 'AD&D' >rather than 'D&D'... several years after the fact. You are more than welcome to provide, if you can, a quote from basic D&D rules that show that Gygax was erroneously using the term "plate mail" to refer to full plate. But without such evidence, it is just a wee bit uncharitable to go around claiming he did not know what he was talking about. >My recollection >is that until 'Unearthed Arcana' (just before AD&D >Second >Edition<) ALL forms of non-leather armor were called >'mail' (Ringmail, Scalemail, Splitmail, et cetera) and only then were >examples of 'full plate' (or further stages of development towards >it) introduced... The distinction between "plate mail" and "plate armor" was made in the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide, published in 1979. These rules were expanded with the publication of Unearthed Arcana in 1985. Ring-mail, scale-mail, and splint-mail, are all arguably types of mail. Banded mail certainly is. Splint mail refers to mail reinforced with splints -- no-one, to my knowledge, ever made an entire suit of armor out of splints. Ring mail is referred to as "mail" by Tolkien. And if rings on leather can qualify as "mail" then scale armour can as well. (Ashcroft for instance, refers to scaled hauberks as "mail") The fact that he did not refer to leather armor (or padded armor) as "mail" would seem to be significant evidence against your claim that he used the term indiscriminately for all types of armor.. >though they'd been shown in the artwork all the way >back to the first D&D supplements... portraying 'platemail'. I believe certain artists were also fond of chain-mail bikinis, and various other unlikely suits of armor that are not described in the rules.. >In any >case, whatever Gygax's own level of understanding the fact remains >that Dungeons and Dragons was the source of the now common idea that >'platemail' should be used in reference to full plate armour. Most people cannot tell the difference between "plate mail" and full plate armour. Gygax has made folks no more confused than they were already. . -- John Whelan ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 06 Jun 2001 21:27:47 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 37 Message-ID: <6uofs176j0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> <6uhexwcy6t.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 991855667 899 10.0.3.2 (6 Jun 2001 19:27:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jun 2001 19:27:47 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38537 "Severian" writes: > > But mail has to be made of many small pieces of metal. Usually interlocked > > rings, but possibly scales, or _many_ _small_ plates. > > > > The word mail comes from latin macula (mesh). > > mail: (mal), n 1. flexible armor of metal rings or plates 2. any protective > armor, as the shell of certain animals (origin OE maille - one of the rings > of which such armor is composed) mail 3 noun 1 armour made of interlocking metal rings, chains, or sometimes plates. 2 the hard protective covering, e.g. a shell, carapace, or scales, of certain animals. >> mailed adj [Middle English maille via french from latin macula spot, mesh] Seems your dictionary writer did not go right back to the beginnings. This version is from The New Penguin English Dictionary. > According to the definition rings or plates would be acceptable. No size is > given to either the rings or the plates. But they must be small enough to make it _flexible_, so large plates, as in the film pictures being discussed, are out. > Though the origin of the word > which is English not latin would suggest that rings are intended. Latin originally. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 20 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:11:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.24.218 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991865484 12.79.24.218 (Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:11:24 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:11:24 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38604 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com... > You are more than welcome to provide, if you can, a quote from > basic D&D rules that show that Gygax was erroneously using > the term "plate mail" to refer to full plate. But without such > evidence, it is just a wee bit uncharitable to go around claiming > he did not know what he was talking about. And had I claimed Gygax 'did not know what he was talking about' I might be inclined to dig up my old copy and quote whatever it did say. HOWEVER, since what I actually did was indicate that Gygax and D&D are to blame for the now common impression that 'platemail' should refer to 'full plate armour' I don't see the need. Whether Gygax himself was aware of the distinctions or not is immaterial to the fact that his work is the source of the confusion over the matter. ###### From: nystulc@cs.com (John B. Whelan) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 6 Jun 2001 18:50:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.49.148.250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 991878606 29401 127.0.0.1 (7 Jun 2001 01:50:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2001 01:50:06 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38736 "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote in message news:... > And had I claimed Gygax 'did not know what he was talking about' I > might be inclined to dig up my old copy and quote whatever it did > say. HOWEVER, since what I actually did was indicate that Gygax > and D&D are to blame for the now common impression that 'platemail' > should refer to 'full plate armour' I don't see the need. I went back and reread what you actually said... Perhaps you should as well. You definitely attributed to Gygax errors that he did not actually make. > Whether > Gygax himself was aware of the distinctions or not is immaterial to > the fact that his work is the source of the confusion over the > matter. As already pointed out, Gygax has caused no confusion. All he has done is create awareness that something exists that may be called "plate mail". People who know enough about "full plate armor" to know how to distinguish it from "plate mail" do not confused the two, nor do people who already know the strict definition of the term "mail". People who talk about "plate mail" without knowing it is not the same as full plate armor, are no more ignorant or confused than those who look at the suits pictured in the film and refer to them as "full plate armor". Gygax has caused nobody to believe that "platemail should refer to full plate armor". In order to hold this belief, you have to understand the distinction between the two types, which would preclude the possibility of confusion. Because of Gygax, posters on this NG assumed that Tolkien's reference to Imrahil's "mail" might refer to some sort of plate armor. They were correct in this assumption. Because of Gygax, they know that the term "mail" is not necessarily applied only to pure chainmail. What they don't know can still cause confusion, of course, but this is equally true of those who assume the term can only be applied to a suit of pure chain mesh, (which Imrahil's "mail" apparently was not). -- John Whelan ###### From: "Severian" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <6uzobuphk4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010530231415.05677.00002659@ng-cf1.news.cs.com> <7a9edd20.0105311011.30719222@posting.google.com> <99AR6.2163$C64.1365450@nntp1.onemain.com> <9f6k6f$vor$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <9fefio$kr5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <1qzS6.63828$4f7.4806009@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <9feh0s$481$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> <6uhexwcy6t.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6uofs176j0.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 02:33:57 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.179.104 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.tx.home.com 991881237 65.13.179.104 (Wed, 06 Jun 2001 19:33:57 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 19:33:57 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.tx.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38703 > > mail: (mal), n 1. flexible armor of metal rings or plates 2. any protective > > armor, as the shell of certain animals (origin OE maille - one of the rings > > of which such armor is composed) > > mail 3 noun 1 armour made of interlocking metal rings, chains, or > sometimes plates. 2 the hard protective covering, e.g. a shell, > carapace, or scales, of certain animals. >> mailed adj [Middle > English maille via french from latin macula spot, mesh] > > Seems your dictionary writer did not go right back to the beginnings. > This version is from The New Penguin English Dictionary. > Sorry, Webster's didn't go that far back, but i was making the point that the definition could go either way. The animal definition, though could imply a full metal plate suit. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 66 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.29.199 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 991965873 12.79.29.199 (Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:33 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:33 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38625 "John B. Whelan" wrote in message news:fd166f83.0106061750.ccbb80@posting.google.com... > I went back and reread what you actually said... Perhaps you > should as well. You definitely attributed to Gygax errors that he > did not actually make. Really? Ok... "The form ['plate mail'] is sometimes used (especially since Gary Gygax adopted it in Dungeons and Dragons) but historically would refer to interlocking plates rather than full plate armor..." All true, right? Gygax used 'plate mail', this was directly responsible for the term becoming popular, it was not historically used to describe full plate armor. "Historically, something called 'plate-mail' would be small plates linked together... rather than Gygax's 'platemail' which is a misnomer for full plate armour." Ok, here I indicate that Gygax's 'platemail' was used to indicate full plate armour. I base this on the fact that for the first five years after D&D came out no definition was given for 'platemail', but illustrations of individuals in full plate armor were used. When definitions of the armor types WERE finally given they did describe an armor of mixed 'plate and mail'. Maybe Gygax was aware of the distinction all along, maybe he wasn't... but either way the fact remains that historically 'plate mail' would refer not to full plate (as has come to be the common view) NOR 'plate and mail' (as Gygax later defined it) but rather to a set of small linked overlapping plates (which, in point of fact, Gygax defines as 'scale mail') - AND that his texts WERE the source of the now common idea that 'plate mail' should refer to full plate armor. The term was virtually unknown (and referred to something else entirely) prior to Gygax. Some of the other terms ('splint mail') were never used at all historically so far as I can tell or were also used to describe armor of different design than Gygax applied the names to. There is also; "Bronze Plate Mail is an earlier, cheaper version of plate mail, and consists of thick bronze plates worn over leather or padded armor." Note the complete absence of anything which could reasonably be called 'mail' in this description of a 'bronze version' of "plate mail". > Gygax has caused nobody to believe that "platemail should refer to > full plate armor". In order to hold this belief, you have to > understand the distinction between the two types, which would > preclude the possibility of confusion. It is not possible for people to believe that persons wearing plate overall with mail only at specific joints or true full plate can be referred to as 'plate mail'? I disagree, as many (including the person whom I first responded to) apparently DO. Gygax used various terms for armour, including 'plate mail', in ways different from the historical forms and it has led to considerable confusion about armour names and designs throughout the 'fantasy genre'. If you disagree could you please provide some examples of people using the forms adopted by Gygax PRIOR to the publication of D&D? ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:54:49 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 15 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38781 On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:33 GMT, "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote: >"The form ['plate mail'] is sometimes used (especially since Gary >Gygax adopted it in Dungeons and Dragons) but historically would Who in Udun is 'Gary Gygax' and what makes him an expert on anything? (From now on, I will cite 'Melissa Meal'.) the softrat mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- A hush fell over the courtroom, injuring six. ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Lines: 13 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:36:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.29.185 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 992025397 12.79.29.185 (Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:36:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:36:37 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38620 "the softrat" wrote in message news:b5m1it05p63spckdoiovk81at8ehb5rqlf@4ax.com... > Who in Udun is 'Gary Gygax' and what makes him an expert on > anything? One of the originators of 'Dungeons and Dragons'. I mentioned his culpability in the widespread fantasy genre confusion over historical terms for types of armour in passing... little did I know that a federal case would ensue. :) ###### From: nystulc@cs.com (John B. Whelan) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: 8 Jun 2001 18:29:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.49.148.250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 992050184 30420 127.0.0.1 (9 Jun 2001 01:29:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jun 2001 01:29:44 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38884 the softrat wrote in message news:... > Who in Udun is 'Gary Gygax' and what makes him an expert on anything? He is the guy who co-created "Dungeons & Dragons", and apart from his interest in all things medieval, he need not be considered an expert on anything. Apart from D&D, he is notable for badmouthing Tolkien, writing bad fiction, and inventing a fascinating 3-dimensional chess variant. Conrad & I were not debating his expertise, merely whether he is responsible for spreading confusion on the meaning of the term "mail". In fairness to Gygax, I felt that some of Conrad's statments about him were inaccurate. Because of Gygax thousands of people who might otherwise think "mail" is merely stuff the postman carried now believe it refers also to various types of metal armor (which is roughly accurate) but remain ignorant of its narrower, more precise meaning. -- John Whelan ###### From: Donald Shepherd Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:24:29 +1000 Organization: Chicken Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.30.2 X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 992010315 14989 192.168.30.2 (8 Jun 2001 14:25:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jun 2001 14:25:15 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:38676 In article , softrat@pobox.com says... > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:33 GMT, "Conrad Dunkerson" > wrote: > > >"The form ['plate mail'] is sometimes used (especially since Gary > >Gygax adopted it in Dungeons and Dragons) but historically would > > > Who in Udun is 'Gary Gygax' and what makes him an expert on anything? The creator of the original Dungeons & Dragons rules. This apparently make him an expert on everything from armour, weaponry, and fantastic monsters, to the chance you need to do about anything on a d20. -- Donald Shepherd Apathy killed the cat. ###### From: Stan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Organization: Gurthang Castle Message-ID: References: <20010606035516.02698.00002386@ng-fa1.news.cs.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 53 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:28:23 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.179.27.84 X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.chello.at X-Trace: news.chello.at 992168903 62.179.27.84 (Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:28:23 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:28:23 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!pinatubo.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsrouter.chello.at!news.chello.at!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:39027 On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:33 GMT, "Conrad Dunkerson" wrote: > >"The form ['plate mail'] is sometimes used (especially since Gary >Gygax adopted it in Dungeons and Dragons) but historically would >refer to interlocking plates rather than full plate armor..." > >"Historically, something called 'plate-mail' would be small plates >linked together... rather than Gygax's 'platemail' which is a >misnomer for full plate armour." > > ...but either way the >fact remains that historically 'plate mail' would refer not to >full plate (as has come to be the common view) NOR 'plate and mail' >(as Gygax later defined it) but rather to a set of small linked >overlapping plates (which, in point of fact, Gygax defines as >'scale mail') - AND that his texts WERE the source of the now common >idea that 'plate mail' should refer to full plate armor. The term >was virtually unknown (and referred to something else entirely) prior >to Gygax. Some of the other terms ('splint mail') were never used at >all historically so far as I can tell or were also used to describe >armor of different design than Gygax applied the names to. There were very many kinds of armour made of small or greater plates of metal. Scale mail would be made of leather and covered with small overlapping metal scales. It is a version of a brigandine (coat of mail, invented in the Middle Ages to increase mobility, consisting of metal rings or sheets sewn on to cloth or leather). There were also suits of armour made of similar, rectangular plates (a bit like playing cards, only greater), connected by chainmail, but they were used in east. Splint mail? - armour of the overlapping metal plates used after about 1330. Later there were used a kind of armour called 'anima', which is similar to full plate armour. It has similar shape, but is made of separate, broad bands of steel linked together by special joints - not by leather linig. > It is not possible for people to believe that persons wearing >plate overall with mail only at specific joints or true full plate >can be referred to as 'plate mail'? I disagree, as many (including >the person whom I first responded to) apparently DO. > I don't want to enter the linguistic argument, but full plate armour were worn without full suit of chainmail underneath. However, there were chainmail reinforcements under joints, for example elbows, knees, or hips. ###### Lines: 236 X-Admin: news@cs.com From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 12 Jun 2001 12:25:28 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Subject: Re: Ugly Swords & Armour in LOTR film Message-ID: <20010612082528.25427.00003711@ng-ck1.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:39187 >"John B. Whelan" wrote in message >news:fd166f83.0106061750.ccbb80@posting.google.com... > >> I went back and reread what you actually said... Perhaps you >> should as well. You definitely attributed to Gygax errors that he >> did not actually make. > >Really? Ok... > >"The form ['plate mail'] is sometimes used (especially since Gary >Gygax adopted it in Dungeons and Dragons) but historically would >refer to interlocking plates rather than full plate armor..." Not exactly the quotes I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of "mail was historically used for any interlocking armor, wheras Gygax used it for ANY sort of armor" (incorrect) as well as your reference to "Gygax's 'platemail' which is a misnomer for full plate armor" (also incorrect if we accept Gygax's own definition of the term "plate mail" -- which seems to me to be the only fair thing to do.) >All true, right? Gygax used 'plate mail', this was directly >responsible for the term becoming popular, it was not historically >used to describe full plate armor. I never claimed the phrase "plate mail" was historical. I merely pointed out that Gygax does not define the term as applying to "full plate armor". This is especially true if you define "full plate armor" as excluding any mail whatsoever, so that the suit cannot be considered "plate-and-mail". Such a suit of armor is probably a relatively rare item in any period of history. Most suits of plate consisted of both plate and mail, even when most or all of the mail was worn under the plate, and therefore not visible. >"Historically, something called 'plate-mail' would be small plates >linked together... rather than Gygax's 'platemail' which is a >misnomer for full plate armour." > >Ok, here I indicate that Gygax's 'platemail' was used to indicate >full plate armour. ...deliberately ignoring the definition provided by Gygax. >I base this on the fact that for the first five >years after D&D came out no definition was given for 'platemail', Which itself is evidence of nothing. Plate-and-mail is as prevalent historically as "Full Plate" (however that is defined), if not in fact much more so. Plate-and-mail is arguably more suitable to the sort of ahistorical quasi-medieval timeframe Gygax had in mind (inspired largely by Robert Howard's tales of the Hyborean Age.) >but illustrations of individuals in full plate armor were used. Not having seen these illustrations of "full plate armor" it is hard for me to comment. The earliest edition of the basic set that I have come from 1979, and feature only 3 types of armor: Leather Armor, Chain-Mail, and Plate Mail. It's illustrations include 3 representations of Plate Armor. The first, on the cover of the box, features the most complete set of plate, arguably qualifying as "full plate" but not to the extent that chainmail is dispensed with. The warrior in question is clearly wearing a chain hauberk under his cuirass, and we can clearly see it through the gaps in the plate covering, as well as the chain skirt from behind. The second illustration is on the booklet's title page and is by the same artist. This time the plate covering is far less complete since it lacks both shoulder guards and plate skirt (I forget the techical term). We can see far more of the hauberk, and it is the warrior's only protection for his entire neck & shoulders, and its chain skirt protects everything between the bottom of his cuirass and his leg-armor. Hardly "full plate armor". A third illustration, in the interior, of a warrior battling a hydra, appears to wear some sort of plate, but it is not detailed enough to tell how "complete" the suit of plate is, or whether there is any mail present. There are no other illustrations of plate armor. Which of these illustrations (if any) are intended to be illustrative of Gygax's concept of "plate mail"? Beats the hell out of me! There are also various pictures of "chainmail" suits, but they show no consistency. Sometimes warriors are draped entirely in chain from head to toe, and at others they wear only a shortsleaved mail shirt. There is no consistency in the completeness of the outfit, and it is anyone's guess which the rules are intended to represent.. We also see what appears to be some sort of scale mail (what you say was historically called 'plate-mail'). Yet no "scale mail" is mentioned in the basic D&D rules. The reasonable presumption to make is that the artists are just drawing whatever they wish. For instance, on the cover of the basic D&D module "Keep on the Borderlands", by Gygax, there is a picture on the cover of an orc wielding a spear, and wearing a wierd hauberk of elongated hexagonal plates. There are no other pictures of any other sort of "plate" armor in the entire module. Looking at the picture as a new D&D player, I naturally assumed the picture was intended as a representation of "plate mail". Was I wrong? In the basic D&D module B4 "The Lost City" (1982) there are likewise no illustrations of anything remotely resembling "full plate armor". There are, however, several representations of hauberks which are formed from a large number of moderate-sized metal plates, and it is reasonable to suspect that the artist intended these as representations of "plate mail". But in the "Palace of the Silver Princess" (Module B3, 1981) the artist draws "full plate armor". They are poor illustrations which look so comical they are hard to take seriously. But which artist's interpretation is correct? The only other early module I have is Gygax's Village of Homlet (1979), with illustrations by DA Trampier. The main villain is described as wearing plate mail, and he is pictured on the title page by Trampier as wearing an incomplete suit of plate armor in which large sections of chain-mail are clearly visible between the gaps in the plate. >When definitions of the armor types WERE finally given they did >describe an armor of mixed 'plate and mail'. Maybe Gygax was aware >of the distinction all along, maybe he wasn't... You use the term "finally" to refer to Gygax's clarification of the term in 1979. I cannot help wondering if you have any D&D publications from prior to this date? My understanding is that they are rather rare collectors items, and that 1979 marks the year that D&D publications started to receive a fairly wide circulation. In any event, I doubt that the illustrations from these early, rare, collectors items are any more consistent in their portrayal of armor types than those from the later ones. In any event, I think that the reasonable and proper thing to do would be to accept his clarification of the word "plate mail", and not continue to say that he used it to refer to "full plate armor". If you are going to accuse him of inventing the phrase, at least allow him to provide his own definition. >but either way the >fact remains that historically 'plate mail' would refer not to >full plate (as has come to be the common view) >NOR 'plate and mail' >(as Gygax later defined it) but rather to a set of small linked >overlapping plates (which, in point of fact, Gygax defines as >'scale mail') - AND that his texts WERE the source of the now common >idea that 'plate mail' should refer to full plate armor. What common view? The person to whom you were originally responding to merely expressed the idea that there were many types of mail, including "plate mail". He did not insist that the term be aplied to "full plate armor" -- a rare animal that has not, to my knowledge, been pictured in the films. >The term >was virtually unknown (and referred to something else entirely) prior >to Gygax. Some of the other terms ('splint mail') were never used at >all historically so far as I can tell or were also used to describe >armor of different design than Gygax applied the names to. There >is also; > >"Bronze Plate Mail is an earlier, cheaper version of plate mail, and >consists of thick bronze plates worn over leather or padded armor." > >Note the complete absence of anything which could reasonably be >called 'mail' in this description of a 'bronze version' of "plate >mail". By this point Gygax has already clarified, twice, the difference between Plate Mail and Plate Armor, indicating that he understands meaning of the term "mail". Using the above passage to prove the contrary, at this stage, is not charitable, since one can easily resolve the discrepancy by making reasonable allowances. Gygax describes "Bronze Plate Mail" in reference to "Plate Mail", which has already been described, and which we know has a sort of mail backing. If you are not willing to assume that Gygax simply forgot to mention bronze chain mail, then a scale mail or "plate mail" (in what you say is the proper historical sense) of small bronze plates on leather is certainly reasonable, and fits with the level of protection Gygax claims the armor offers (AC 4 from the front, and AC 6 from behind). Gygax says the plates are thick -- he does not say all of them are large. >> Gygax has caused nobody to believe that "platemail should refer to >> full plate armor". In order to hold this belief, you have to >> understand the distinction between the two types, which would >> preclude the possibility of confusion. > > It is not possible for people to believe that persons wearing >plate overall with mail only at specific joints or true full plate >can be referred to as 'plate mail'? I disagree, as many (including >the person whom I first responded to) apparently DO. While it may be possible for persons to misapply the term "plate-mail" to "full plate armor with no mail" this is rarely done for the excellent reason that such suits are unusual. In any event, the person to whom you first responded expressed no such view. He only expressed the idea that such a thing as plate mail existed, and the most he even IMPLIED was that such a term might be applied to the suits of plate as are seen in the film stills. He may or may not have been aware of the precise meaning of the term "mail" but that is no excuse for imputing to him views that he did not express. >Gygax used various terms for armour, including 'plate mail', in ways >different from the historical forms and it has led to considerable >confusion about armour names and designs throughout the 'fantasy >genre'. If you disagree could you please provide some examples of >people using the forms adopted by Gygax PRIOR to the publication of >D&D? Well, there is Robert E. Howard, from whom Gygax probably got the usage: "...the squires stripped Valannus of mail shirt, burganet, and leg-pieces, and clad him in Conan's armor of black plate-mail, with the vizored salade, and the dark plumes nodding over the wivern crest." -- Hour of the Dragon, 1935. Im not quite sure what sort of armor Howard is here referring to, but all indications of the story seem to indicate a sort of mid-to-late medieval technology of warfare. Certainly Conan's "plate-mail", the armor of a King, can be presumed to be superior to normal chain-mail, as opposed to historical "plate-mail" (in the scale-mail/brigandine as opposed to plate-and-mail sense), which was, i believe, inferior to chainmail. I know offhand of no other passages where Howard uses the term "plate-mail", but he does sometimes seem a little loose in the use of the term "mail". He will speak of "mail-clad knights" in one breath, but in the next, the "clothyard shafts" are finding "every crevice in their armor" which would be major overkill in the case of simple chainmail. Numerous other indications indicate that his knights wear some sort of plate-armor. On other occasions, King Conan's "mail" gets "battered", which seems an odd way to describe damage to chain armour. Charles Ashdown, in European Arms and Armor, adopts a similar loose usage, and remarks that the invention of firearsm heralded the disappearance of the "mail-clad knight" who had dominated the battlefield for centuries. I suppose he should have said "the plate-clad knight", since the latter had driven out the "mail-clad knight" two centuries earlier, unless you make allowances for the fact that most suits of plate included at least some mail, whether visible or no. It may be worth noting that Tolkien read and enjoyed Howard's Conan stories, and was exposed to his loose usage of the term "mail" prior to writing Lord of the Rings. I rather suspect that even Howard, nor even Ashdown, was not the first to use the term in this way. However, I have not read everything ever written on the subject of arms and armor. If I had, I'm sure I would have many more examples beside those I have come across almost at random. -- John Whelan