Actually, I'm just accepting Tolkien's word on the matter. He does INSIST that the Rohirrim don't resemble the Anglo-Saxons in anything but a general sense.

: Are the Rohirrim Anglo-Saxons? I agree that they are not; they
: are an invention of Tolkien's. Were they influenced by
: Tolkien's knowledge of the Anglo-Saxons? I think they
: undoubtedly were.

: The bottom line is language, whatever the origin of Tolkien's
: use of a version of Anglo-Saxon for the speech of the Rohirrim
: (archaic English compared to modern = an archaic variant of
: Adunaic to Westron) on the page the words are Old English and
: this will unavoidably affect how the reader views the speakers.

I avoided mistaking the Rohirrim for Anglo-Saxons quite easily, and many other people have done so as well. That some readers want to identify the Rohirrim with the Anglo-Saxons doesn't mean Tolkien did. You'll never find any statements by Tolkien which support such a conclusion. You'll never find one from Tolkien saying he modelled them on the Goths. I can point to the Goths and say, "Here are clear and distinct parallels", but Tolkien himself didn't say the Rohirrim were modelled on the Goths.

Nonetheless, he used Gothic for their early language and if we must identify the Rohirrim with the Anglo-Saxons because of Tolkien's use of A-S to represent their speech then we must identify their ancestors with Goths for the same reason -- and that sort of logic becomes self-defeating, because the Anglo-Saxons and the Goths had entirely different cultures.

: Other parallels between the two peoples are plentiful:

: Both have:

: Domestic architechture based on timber, though both can use
: stone (Hornburg - A-S churches, repairs/additions to Roman
: fortifications).

This is not peculiar to the Anglo-Saxons, nor even to the ancient Germans. Hence, it's not a parallel between the Rohirrim and the Anglo-Saxons.

: Give names to weapons and invest them with moral and
: temperamental characteristics.

Nor was this peculiar to the Anglo-Saxons, although it does appear to be more of a Germanic custom than something found outside their world. So, again, this is not a parallel between the Rohirrim and the Anglo-Saxons.

: Have a heroic poetry which is based on alliteration and the use
: of a caesura (pause) in the middle of a line.

We have on examples of untranslated Rohirric poetry to make such a comparison.

: Have a penchant for using by-words - such as whale-road for sea
: or war-board for shield.

Nor was this peculiar to the Anglo-Saxons, so again it's not a parallel between the Rohirrim and the Anglo-Saxons.

: Have codes of honour stressing personal bravery and
: faithfulness to a lord and hospitality to strangers.

Again, this is not peculiar to the Anglo-Saxons, so it's not a parallel between the Rohirrim and the Anglo-Saxons.

: Bury dead leaders in earthen mounds.

See above.

: These are just some of the more immediately obvious parallels.

But they are not parallels at all -- not in the sense you propose. If they were there would never have been any question of identifying the Rohirrim with the Anglo-Saxons. But because Tolkien integrated only generic customs found throughout many Celto-Germanic tribes of the ancient world, it's inarguable that the Rohirric culture is nothing more than a generalization of the cultures that once thrived in northern Europe, rather than a derivative of Anglo-Saxon or any other particular culture.

: Some of the differences you quote are not quite as clear-cut as
: you might like. Much of Rohan was lowland, though the major
: fortified sites were for obvious reasons constructed in the
: highlands...

All the named cities and villages were located in the mountains or their foothills: Edoras, Aldburg, Upboard, Underharrow, and the hundreds or thousands of farms of Westfold were all located in the hills and mountains. There is no mention of anyone actually living in the lowlands.

: ...Also some of the Anglo-Saxon peoples were settled in
: highland - try telling a Pecsaete or Elmetsaete that the high
: Pennines were lowlands, or a Wreocensaete that the Wrekin hills
: were mere molehills ;)

The Anglo-Saxons, when they first settled in Britain, settled along the coasts, not in the highlands. And the bulk of the population has always remained in the lowlands.

: Also, judging from pictographic evidence, the Northumbrian
: Anglo-Saxon army defeated by the Picts at Nechtansmere in the
: 7th century was composed wholly of cavalry.

So why is it that historians continue to portray the Anglo-Saxons as an infantry-dominated people? Egfrid's use of cavalry against the Picts doesn't mean his only significant military force consisted of mounted warriors (and the fact he lost control over the Picts and was indeed killed doesn't compare favorably with the Rohirrim either).

: The Anglo-Saxons, as opposed to the Angles and Saxons, were not
: particularly effective seafarers...

Neither the Rohirrim, the Eotheod, the Rhovanions, nor the Free Men of the North or any of their predecessors ever went to sea. The Anglo-Saxons may not have maintained great navies, but they most certainly retained their knowledge of the sea and stayed in contact with Scandinavia and France by ship.

: ...Once the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had arose in Britain any
: inheritance from the Saxon pirates who preyed on the Late
: Romans of Britain and Gaul seems to have been quickly lost as
: most sea traffic in Northwestern Europe was carried on by the
: Frisians. The eventual English response to Viking sea power
: was a rather artificial one spawned by the genius of Alfred the
: Great, and not drawn from a strong sea-faring tradition
: previously exhibited by the English peoples themselves.

The point, however, is that they did not forget the sea and become a wholly landbound people. Anglo-Saxons crossed over to the continent and other peoples crossed over to England. The Rohirrim simply did not use ships or boats.

------------------
Xenite.Org: Science Fiction and Fantasy