Weapons and Warfare book.

Discussion in 'General Books' started by Elvenblademaster, Jan 1, 2004.

  1. Elvenblademaster

    Elvenblademaster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Is there anybody else that is greatly disapointed in the weapons and warfare book. It is wonderfully illustrated, but it takes mistakes from the movies and qutes them as fact, plus it is written in a form that makes it more like a history and archeaology book, rather than a movie guide. It says that artifacts have been recoverd that verify certain theories. IT says that they have recovered orc banners from the pellenor fields and skeletons of wargs near rohan and a claw from one of the fell beasts of the nazgul :dragon: , and that is only from brief reading. It says in the chapter on legolas that there is no record of legolas ever using one knife so we must assume that he was ambidexious. Hello, the only "record" we have is that legolas only had one knife. I was greatly dissapointed with this book it should have been written in a movie guide fashion rather than an actuall history. People who have not read the real books written by JRRT then they can acquire tons of false information and that ain't good. What does everybody else think. :hackit:
     
  2. Elvenblademaster

    Elvenblademaster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Plus I don't know too much about archery but accept for Arnold Swartzanegger, I don't think there is a person alive who could draw legolas' bow, the weapons and warefare book says that it had a draw of more than two hundred pounds, I don't even think that there is a string that could handle that much weight.
     
  3. Gûd Daedheloth

    Gûd Daedheloth Foe of Morgoth's Realm

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    I would think that the majority of people, say 99.99999%, coming from the movie to the bookstore would be most likely to pick up the Hobbit and the Trilogy than the W&W book, so I don't think it's that big of a deal.
     
  4. NCO MOS18B

    NCO MOS18B Better than you.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The fact that it goes with the movies' version of events as opposed to the book's is a REALLY stupid complaint. You should have known that when you saw a picture of VIGGO MORTENSEN on the cover. And the LotR-movie logo. It can't just contradict the MOVIE that it's based on--if it was based off the book then you'd have a legitimate complaint. And the whole "treating it as history" part; who cares? What difference does it make? It's still the exact same information either way.
     
  5. Elladan

    Elladan Son of Elrond

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Imaldris
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Actually, the "treating it as history" part is one of my favorite things about the book. There's no secret wink to the reader, or out-of-costume comment. By treating its subject matter as if it were real, the book conveys an enormous amount of respect for it.

    It's not a movie guide. It's an account of the military history of Middle-Earth. Deal with it.
     
  6. Mike

    Mike The Rocket of Mirkwood

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Courtice, ON
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Legolas' bow-string (the one he recieved from Galadriel anyway) was made of an elf-hair, and thus we can have no idea if it could support a 200lb. draw. As for being able to pull it... he's an elf! I'm under the impression they are stronger than men.

    ==
    Mike.
     
  7. Draven_of_the_Shire

    Draven_of_the_Shire Defender of the West

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Iowa
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I have to agree with GD and NCO... although there is plenty of information that contradicts the books, I feel that it is clearly a book about the weaponry in the movies. If it weren't for the movies, we wouldn't have 90% of the pictures in that book, and the fact that it treats it all like history makes it that much easier to read and helps you get into it a little more. At least thats what I think.
     
  8. Nathan

    Nathan Wielder of the Flame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I like the book overall, and I think it's good they didn't add much contradictory info that points how the movies differ from the books. One of the few lines that I can think of right away that make any reference to the differences is in Saruman's bio where it says accounts differ whether he met his end in Orthanc or the Shire. Too many "The books say this, while in the movies..." would confuse too many people who haven't read the books. I do chuckle a little bit when I look at the ranged weapons chart and Legolas' Lorien bow shoots farther than anything else in Middle-Earth. Throwing Axe: 25 yards. Trebuchet: 200 yards. Lorien Bow: 400! But I don't dwell on it much.
     
  9. Elvenblademaster

    Elvenblademaster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    First of all Gud you are wrong I have many friends who said " I'm not gonna read the books I've seen the movies, if I need to know stuff then I'll just look it up in the weapons book."

    Making this book into a history of documentary as it is, takes away so much of the magic and fantasy of tolkiens work, saying things in that fashion leads the reader to believe that it is factual, not fantasy. If I was just browsing though the weapons and warfare book and I had seen the movies, I would be stopping and thinking, "wait a minute did this really happen, are these movies inspired from real history." Generalizing Tolkiens' books into a form that makes it a factual documnetary, is in my opinion an action which dictakes Peter Jacksons films into no longer JRRT's books but PJ's movie creation. The WW book makes outlandish statements saying that the Ithilien ranger bows had a draw of 150lbs, that is not physically possible, it says that they have recovered warg skeletons from Rohan, can you take me to Rohan and show me the excavation site, NO of course not, saying that they have been found leads the uneducated reader ( and yes I know several) to beleive what is not true. In all honesty I do not see how it is leagal to write a book in this untruthful fashion. Another thing is that it follows the movie information so precisely and then branches off talking about how before the elves could use Mallorn wood that they would have to offer sacrifices to Yavvana. Now you tell me the uneducated reader is not gonna stop and say " Who the heck is yavvana and why do they have to offer sacrifices to her or him or what?" And no where that I have read to JRRT say that the elves ever made sacrifices to any Valar.
    In closing my main point is, a documnetary history style writing should only be written for factual events that really happened, writing it in this method takes away from the fantasy and mystery that makes up the Middle earth that we have come to know and love. This book gives the impression that it all actually happened, there is no way that you can say it doesn't when it makes statments such as refering to pictures, Left: Ocr banners recovered from Pellenor fields, Top right: Fell beast claw unearthed in land near modor.
     
  10. Nathan

    Nathan Wielder of the Flame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Theoretically, when a kingdom wants to get the enemy's remains off a battle-field, that's all the excavating you need to observe some things. Besides, I'm sure there were a few loremasters in Middle-Earth that would have wanted to make detailed descriptions about some things, to keep the past alive. Characters know proper greetings and farewells for different cultures, they know songs and languages, why should weapons be any different? I know what you mean and all, elvenblademaster, but I'd like to see proof that people DIDN'T know about some of those things.
     
  11. NCO MOS18B

    NCO MOS18B Better than you.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Not helping your case much, buddy.
     
  12. Elvenblademaster

    Elvenblademaster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Dude there is no middle earth for the lore masters there to make detailed reports about.
     
  13. Elvenblademaster

    Elvenblademaster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    What is that suppose to mean , I was being serious. I didn't really think that,I was using it as an example, when you read a history book it says the exact same things " recovered, unearthed" that lets you know that it is real and that it really happened.
     
  14. zul

    zul New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I remember hearing that Tolkien wrote the books as if it were a pre-history of our Earth, as if all this really could have hapened and it was just lost in the centuries past.

    I ordered the W&W book a few days ago, hopfully it'll be here in a few days :D
     
  15. Elvenblademaster

    Elvenblademaster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Yes of course he did, but what you have to realize is that even though they are written like that he did not intend for anyone to believe that they really happened.
     
  16. Draven_of_the_Shire

    Draven_of_the_Shire Defender of the West

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Iowa
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    elvenblademaster, of course Tolkien did not intend for anyone to believe the stuff in his books really happened, even though he thought of it as a "pre-history" to our earth.... it was a work of fiction, just like the Weapons and Warfare book is a work of fiction. The book can make whatever claims it wants and not have to worry about a thing, because it is a litterary work of FICTION.

    With all of the points you bring up, it makes it sound like it should be illegal to write any work of fiction for fear of it being thought of as truth, or history. Every book and movie ever written was true in its own world! Darth Vader blew up Alderaan, but that had no effects on our solar system, though it did happen a long time ago in a galaxie far far away... People don't think it was really a planet that got blown up! There is no Alderaan, just like there is no Middle Earth! That is why it is fiction, not fact!

    I am not trying to tell you that there are not faults with the book, I am just trying to get you to see my perspective of the arguement.

    The other thing is this... how do we know what was and wasn't possible in Tolkien's world??? For pete's sake he had dragons and elves and magic rings. Wasn't Elendil over 7 feet tall, as were many of his people??? I'll bet they were pretty strong! My point is this... who are we to say what is and is not possible when it comes to the strength of men in Tolkiens world? It is up for each person to make their own judgement as to what they believe... You have your opinion, just like the author has his... Don't attack him for his interpretation of the book.

    I am not trying to attack you or anything here, it just seems like you think your interpretation of Tolkien's world is the only correct one, and I am trying to show you my interpretation. :D Besides, we all love Tolkien's work... if you don't like the W&W book, no harm no foul, but I really don't think the author means for anyone to take it as actual history!!! If that was the case, then I would be on your side.
     
  17. Haldir

    Haldir Archer Extraordinaire

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Hope that quote works right (advanced is broken).

    I saw quite a long time ago on Discovery that Roman bows had a draw weight of somewhere around 120/150#. Now if they could do it in Roman times I don't see why it would not be possible nowadays... They all were left with curved spines but that's the reality of it. Middle Earth is a Fantasy World. Anything's possible!!

    And I know 400 yards is quite a lot, and the book also says an Effective Distance of a quarter of a mile (as in not max but accurate distance) but if you've ever done Clout Shooting you'll know it's not hard to pull off 150 meters with a 70/80# bow. I have seen it done. Doubling the poundage may not double the distance (for all sorts of reasons) but it would start creeping steadily towards the 400 yards (366 meters).

    Personally I like the book. It may not be entirely accurrate but as has been said before it cannot contradict the films that it is based on.

    Well LOTR is more based on the fact of the upcoming World War but it is also based on the past-very nice documentary on National Geographic showed this very well...
     
  18. DohHunter

    DohHunter Community Defender

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I thought the W&W book was an excellent representation of the "movie trilogy" not the "book trilogy".

    Althought being an archer myself, I scoffed a bit at the some of the archery claims :)
     
  19. nazguls

    nazguls Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Hey, you guys are talking about my Christmas Present which I happened to enjoy reading.

    1) No, I've not read Tokkien's Books
    2) Yes, I've seen NLP Lord of the Rings at least 10 times, including 2 times ROTK.
    3) No, I never got the impression that W&W has anything historically factual in it.
    4) Yes, LOTR and W&W and Tokkien's Books are works of Friction. So what
    are we all arguing about?
     
  20. Draven_of_the_Shire

    Draven_of_the_Shire Defender of the West

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Iowa
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Exactly Nazguls, #4 was my point exactly! I too love the book. (it was my christmas present too!)