I don't find him to be shy of admitting to outside influences at all. He acknowledges the Egyptians for the Numenoreans, Kullervo for Turin, "Beowulf" for cup-theft, etc.

: : 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.

: Somewhat distinct, but I would not say entirely; both had a
: common Germanic cultural inheritance modified by a greater or
: lesser influence from Greco-Roman culture.

Much that we think of as "Germanic" with respect to these ancient peoples is really not "Germanic". There were other primitive peoples in Europe who lived in very similar fashion. What distinguishes Goths from Anglo-Saxons is time and place in history, the role they played in their world, and the past experiences which led them to be who they were. The Goths, at least, had two ancient families that had risen to such prominence as to be regarded "royal" rather than merely "noble", whereas the Anglo-Saxon kings were largely descended from little more than bandit-chieftains (although the Mercian kings claimed to be descended from ancient Anglian kings).

And the Goths lived in a world quite different from that of the Anglo-Saxons (although "Goths" continued to live on after the Roman Empire ended in the west). But we think of Alaric when we think of the Goths, and we think of Harald when we think of the Anglo-Saxons, or Alfred. These were distinctly different men living in distinctly different worlds.

: : 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.

: Please let us be logical, it is definitely a parallel, just not
: an exclusive one...

Then we might as well claim the Rohirrim were based on the Lusatians for this reason. Timber-based architecture is not a cultural identification for the Anglo-Saxons. Virtually all primitive European peoples used it.

: ...You yourself use similar arguments to favour particular
: ideas you espouse. For example Dunedan and Egyptian parallels
: in regard of monumental architecture, when of course monumental
: building was the hallmark of such diverse cultures as Imperial
: Rome, The Khmer, Aztecs, Toltecs, Babylonians..... etc. etc.

Tolkien was the one who said the Dunedain's archtitecture resembaled that of the Egyptians. I'm just repeating what he said. Since he didn't compare them to the Aztec and Mayas, or the Khmer, etc. (and Rome's architecture didn't resemble the Egyptians, although Romans accomplished some neat things), he must have felt the Egyptians provided precisely the model he wanted to represent.

There is a considerable difference between the pyramids of Giza (and the huge statues of the Egyptian kings) and the simple timber-based architecture of the ancient Europeans.
: : : Have a heroic poetry which is based on alliteration and the
: : : use of a caesura (pause) in the middle of a line.

: : We have no examples of untranslated Rohirric poetry to make
: : such a comparison.

: Translation while retaining the form of poetry is quite
: possible.

But not indicated.

: : : 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.

: As above.

As above, it's no more logical to suggest this is a parallel with the Anglo-Saxons than it is to suggest it's a parallel with the Lusatians or Celts. But the linguistic practice of combining words is certainly found among other peoples in Middle-earth as well (besides the Ents). "Hobbiton" is an example. "Rath Celerdain" is another, and numerous Elvish words are in fact such compounds.

: : : 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.

: As above. The Rohirrim have exactly the same anxiety about
: retaining and defending the body of Theoden as the English
: displayed, or were expected to display, for the fallen
: ealdorman Beortnoth at the Battle of Maldon.

[snip]

You've surely read Tacitus, Martin. That custom was documented among the ancient Germans centuries before there were Anglo-Saxons.

It simply doesn't apply.

: : 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.

: I have never argued that the Anglo-Saxons were the only
: influence on the genesis of the Rohirrim, only that to exclude
: their influence entirely is not tenable given the many
: similarities.

The Anglo-Saxons don't serve as a model for the Rohirrim any more than any other ancient northern people. That they were "Germanic" at all is itself only a tenuous idea at best. They were "northern", as much like Celts as like Germans (a town on a hill -- how much like an oppida is Edoras?). In fact, the Gauls had a large cavalry force, wearing mail, in Caesar's day. But, like the Anglo-Saxons, they were not a united people.

: : 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.

: Horses are not well equiped for life in mountainous districts,
: an extreme caballocentric culture like the Rohirrim necessarily
: has to occupy and use plains and grass-rich lowlands, the
: mountains cannot have held the overwhelming majority of the
: population.

[snip classic Greece example]

People raise horses throughout the Appalachian and Rockie mountains here in the United States. They don't appear to have any significant problems in doing so. But the Rohirrim didn't confine their activities to the mountains. Clearly they pastured their herds in the open grasslands at times.

And the Helvetians, who lived in the Alps, had a much larger population than we can surmise for the Rohirrim. Hundreds of thousands of people were well able to live in mountains (and build farms, raise livestock, maintain a sophisticated culture, etc.) without direct access to lowlands or use of modern technology.

: : 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.

: There were, as I have argued, lowland Rohirrim and highland
: Anglo-Saxons so the use of this contrast is not really
: warranted.

We cannot say with any surety that any of the Rohirrim lived outside the dales of the mountains. But the Anglo-Saxons did not SETTLE in the mountains. The Rohirrim SETTLED in the mountains. The few Anglo-Saxons who moved to the highlands came later. The Rohirrim settled in the valleys at the very beginning. Big difference.

: : : 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).

: There is, as I have attempted to show, no hard and fast
: distinction between "purely footslogging A-Saxons" and
: centaur-like Rohirrim. Rohan had some footsoldiers and the
: Anglo-Saxons could produce cavalry when appropriate.

[snip reference to costly Anglo-Saxon horses]

Rohan had "some footsoldiers" but its primary military force consisted of the Riders of Rohan. The Anglo-Saxons had no equivalent military force. Furthermore, the Rohirrim ("Masters of Horses") were so culturaly bound up with their horses they were unmistakeably identified with those animals by other peoples. England was named for Angles, Rohan was named for horses.

The Rohirrim lived and breathed horses. They were the primary livestock for the Rohirrim, and their pride and joy. Horses were not uncommon or costly among the Rohirrim.

: : 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.

: Then again the A-Saxons were hardly mermen or thalassocrats.

They were nonetheless a sea-bound people, living by and making use of the sea. One of the most famous Anglo-Saxon anecdotes has a king attempting to command the sea to make a point with his counselllors. The most famous Anglo-Saxon burial mound was excavated at Sutton Hoo -- and it contained a ship. No one put any ships or boats in Theoden's burial mound.

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