: : He often volunteered such information on his influences and
: : sources from his own initiative, but in general if such were
: : pointed out to him he tended to become somewhat defensive and
: : seek to deny them. Though in Tolkien's defence, such claims
: : from outside sources were often made in very simplistic terms
: : and his reaction was often towards denying a simple derivation,
: : rather than to deny any influence. I would suggest that in
: : this case Tolkien's denial of a simple Anglo-Saxon = Rohirrim
: : equation has led you to take a stance which wrongly denies any
: : relationship at all.

: I don't deny any relationship at all. Tolkien clearly used Anglo-Saxon to represent the language of Rohan. But there the relationship ends. Tolkien certainly resented implications (or declarations) that his story was based on Wagner and similar nonsense, but he wasn't very defensive at all as far as I can see. Of course, LETTERS is only a selection of his correspondence and doesn't include comments he made outside of that correspondence. But it's nearly all I have to go on in determining what he said about his sources.

He almost always asserts internal origins for words, for example, uruk is a Sumerian city but Tolkien would hold up a derivation from Orch or some Quenya stem. This is almost certainly retrospective in some measure - no doubt he originally produced the word either consciously or sub-consciously from a liking for the original name of the city.

: : : 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).

: : However, the Rohirric royal family seem to be descended from a
: : defeated officer-group of the Rhovanion cavalry. Certain
: : Anglo-Saxon royal families were probably descended from the
: : leaders of Late Roman germanic troops in Britain, so an
: : argument for a greater similarity of Rohanish monarchy to
: : English monarchy could be made. The West Saxon monarchy, to
: : judge from its founder's name (Cerdic) and later names such as
: : Ceawlin (=Colin) and Caedwalla had native British roots. Such
: : could be seen to parallel the intermarriage with the
: : Dunlendings which led to Helm's difficulties.

: The "defeated cavalry officer-group" were apparently descendants of the kings of Rhovanion. At least, in Appendix A, in "The House of Eorl", Tolkien writes: "...The forefathers of Eorl claimed descent from kings of Rhovanion, whose realm lay beyond Mirkwood before the invasions of the Wainriders, and thus they accounted themselves kinsmen of the Kings of Gondor descended from Eldacar...."

It is interesting that Tolkien used the word "Claimed" when he could have merely asserted a definite descent. This suggests that there was some reason to doubt the veracity of the Eorlings' assertions. The Eorlings would not be the first dynasty to make false claims of an illustrious descent especially if they arose to power in times of cultural-political dislocation. In fact a good parallel could be drawn to the Anglo-Saxon royal houses who uniformally claimed direct descent from the god Woden :)

: Continuity of lineage (particularly through the elder male line) is a very important (and relatively consistent) theme in Tolkien.

: : : 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.

: : Worlds which probably met in the aftermath of Hastings. Many
: : Anglo-Saxons of the military castes emmigrated to the Byzantine
: : Empire, any such not needed in the Varangian Guard were used as
: : military settlers in the Crimea where they would have met a
: : remnant of the Goths who had preserved their identity from the
: : time of the collapse of Gothic rule in the steppes.

: If the worlds met, they did not meet in England, and they did not take the results of that meeting back to England. But by the 11th century the Goths of the Crimea were no longer the Goths who had settled in the Roman Empire -- they certainly didn't inspire the kind of folklore which arose around Alaric and his Goths or the lost Visigothic kingdoms (in Gaul and Iberia), even if their language did survive until the 16th century.

Though Anglo-Saxon kings generated lots of folklore themselves. Alfred and his cakes, Offa and his dyke, King Edmund the saint and his re-attaching head and incorruptible body etc.

: : : 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.

: : There is no extant heroic poetry of the Lusatians or any others
: : (save the Viking) which describes such a close parallel with
: : Meduseld as appears in Beowulf.

: And yet archaeology has unearthed hundreds of long houses throughout Europe. We know the architecture of Meduseld and Heorot are just idealized extensions of basic ancient architecture.

Tolkien was a linguist not an archaeologist his likely influences are literary - Anglo-Norse literature abounds in reference to such halls - not so other literatures.

: : : 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.

: : Did he express himself so explicitly on the question of
: : architecture? I thought he merely said that the Dunedain and
: : Egyptians were alike in delighting in the monumental.

: He began with the comment that the Dunedain are "best pictured in Egyptian terms". He goes on to say "in many ways they resembled 'Egyptians'", and he provides us with four examples for comparison (indicating there were more ways): the construction of massive and gigantic buildings and objects; "their great interest in ancestry and in tombs"; the crown and diadem; the division of the culture into two kingdoms.

: Tolkien never makes any similar comparison between the Rohirrim and any other historical people. There are at least four documented concessions from Tolkien which point to the Egyptian model for the Dunedain of Arnor and Gondor (and since he admitted that Numenor was based on Atlantis, I find it tempting to infer a Platonian connection between the Dunedain and Egyptians as well, since Plato said Solon got the story from the Egyptians).

: The lack of any cultural comparison for the Rohirrim indicates Tolkien didn't identify them with any historical peoples in any way. He wrote a great deal about them, but there isn't even one obscure reference -- not so much as a, "BTW, the such-and-such people had a similar custom, etc."

: He did, however, insist they were not to be identified with the Anglo-Saxons (Appendix F) and he said the Rohirrim were not medieval "in our sense" (Letter 211). These two statements remove the Rohirrim from any distinct relationship with the Anglo-Saxons other than the use of the latter's language to represent the former's.

The early Anglo-Saxons were sub-Roman or Dark Age people, Mediaeval is a term whose limits are badly defined.

: : : 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.

: : Though Stonehenge pre-dates the pyramids and is nothing if not
: : monumental.

: It's hardly monumental on the scale of the pyramids (and there are some people who suggest that the Sphinx and the temple at Karnak IIRC, among other structures, are composites of different constructions, since the older architecture contains no carvings as is characteristic of Pharaohnic Egyptian architecture).

: : : : : : 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.

: : The parallel appears on the page.

: There is no parallel. Tolkien did not compose the poems in true Rohirric and then translate them into Anglo-Saxon.

If the Rohirric verse form was different from that indicated why did Tolkien not use it

: : : 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.

: : Compound words are not the same as by-words. In poetry (all we
: : can really judge from as it is essentially all that has
: : survived) the A-Saxons were addicted to the use of sonorous
: : two-word phraselets in preference to the straightforward word.
: : Thus a bear might be a bee-wolf or a warrior an ash-man (ash
: : was the wood of spear-shafts). The Rohirrim show the same sort
: : of addiction.

: Elvish shows the same addiction. "Tinuviel! Tinuviel!"

I would say that Elvish has much less of this sort of linguistic habit than Rohirric. Personal nicknames are not really the same thing - the Romans were fond of earthy nicknames (squinter - Strabo, brass-beard - Ahenobarbus etc.) but Latin does not use by-words like A-S does. A Roman called a sword a sword not a fast-striking steel-serpent.

: : : : : : 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.

: : But this does not diminish the fact that both cultures (A-S and
: : Rohan) exhibit the same trait.

: It's not an "Anglo-Saxon trait". Hence, Tolkien did not get this aspect of the Rohirric culture from the Anglo-Saxons.

Of course it is an Anglo-Saxon trait, it is strongly indicated in their history and literature. Once again it is not a uniquely A-Saxon trait, though it is not as well marked in other cultures. Indeed, in many of the cultures where it is known, or suspected, to have occurred little or no literature was created or has survived. Furthermore, we know that in its Anglo-Saxon form it was investigated at great length by Tolkien, who posed as a continuator of the poet of the Battle of Maldon to produce his own work commenting on the practice of "Service beyond death."

: : : 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.

: : They use modern feeding and stabling methods - and also are not
: : using horses for military purposes. A mountain people has no
: : need for war-horses. That's why the Welsh were never famed for
: : their squadrons of thundering cavalry - or the Swiss, they
: : favoured the bow and the pike respectively.

: Martin, I've fed and stabled horses. I assure you, we do it pretty much the same way men have been doing it for thousands of years. You clean up the stall, put down fresh straw or hay, pour oats or other feed in a bag, hang the bag on the horse's head, and walk away. Watering horses is done rather simply as well. You pour water in a tub or take the horse up to a stream.

Did you sow and reap the feed you fed to these horses? The economic forces on pre-modern highlanders were severe. Equines, other than the most hardy small semi-wild ponies, die in the winter in highland areas in temperate regions if left to fend for themselves. In order to survive they need to be stabled and be provided with plentiful and costly artificial feed (not grazing). Why would a highlander wish to go to this expense? The horse is no particular use to him for defending his home (horses are a military liability in highland areas), oxen are more useful for the plough, and the oats fed to the horse would be better eaten by his family. In contrast in lowlands better quality grass grows which may give year-long grazing or at least provide good hay, and conditions are seldom so severe that stabling becomes a necessity. Also for the lowlander the horse gives a useful premium in mobility and advantages in warfare.

: And we do still breed large horses. And, yes, draft horses are raised in the mountains. War horses? The Rohirrim didn't have the huge mountains of horse that became popular in the late medieval period, but the Goths certainly kept up their cavalry tradition despite living in the Balkans for a while.

Even late Mediaeval war horses were (and we have the armour to prove it) more like large and strong hunters than any of the draught-breeds. The areas of the Balkans settled by the Goths (Moesia, Thrace and latterly Pannonia)contained good horse breeding plains - Pannonia makes up the western half of modern Hungary - home of the hussar.

: : But the Rohirrim didn't confine their activities to the
: : mountains. Clearly they pastured their herds in the open
: : grasslands at times.

: At times. And clearly they kept the horses close to home, too. The Rohirrim lived in the mountains. That's the point.

Given their penchant for horses, the mountains could not have been economically the most important area of their country.

: : : 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.

: : The Rohirrim didn't have to do any appreciable fighting to get
: : into the hills in the first place. The High Peak of Derbyshire
: : was settled before the conversion, so pre-650AD. The English
: : have never been particularly shy of highlands.

: Why would anyone WANT to live in the highlands if the lowlands were available?

Precisely my argument in regard to the Rohirrim.

For defence. The Rohirrim were investing themselves in a largely abandoned land, but they were also fighting off enemies from the east. Theirs was a particularly different situation from what the Anglo-Saxons found in Britain.

: : : 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 first two "English" leaders recorded by legendary history
: : are Hengest and Horsa "Stallion and Horse."

: Yup. And they arrived by ship.

: : But I don't contest the difference in way of life, but in
: : character, speech and to a great extent in culture the Rohirrim
: : come across as "Anglais a cheval."

: If that culture really came across so in such a great extent, we wouldn't be arguing about this. :)

: You are excluding the clear and obvious parallels between the Rohirrim and virtually all northern European peoples to the point of saying these parallels apply only to the Anglo-Saxons.

: I can only think of one passage where Tolkien compared the Rohirric speech to that of the Anglo-Saxons, but I did not get the impression from Tolkien that only the Anglo-Saxons spoke "with a slower tempo and more sonorous articulation, than modern urbans". And he made no comment on poetic forms and usages.

: Also, you keep bringing up "Beowulf". That was not an "Anglo-Saxon" poem. It's generally regarded to be Scandinavian as written down by an Anglo-Saxon. The story, after all, is not about Anglo-Saxons, and it reflects an older time when the Anglo-Saxon world was simply a part of the broader northern world in which many Germanic peoples mingled and exchanged news, stories, and poetry freely.

That's like saying Hamlet isn't a piece of English literature because it is based on Danish folk- lore. Beowulf is a heroic poem based on an oral tradition written by a probably Mercian English poet in the 8th century. Its subject matter concerns the semi-legendary past of Southern Scandinavia but reflects conditions of the place and time of the poet himself (there are Christian elements in the poem for example). Considering that the Angles and the Jutes, who are amongst the cultural progenitors of the Anglo-Saxons, both lived in Jutland and were the immediate neighbours of the Danes (who were in turn the immediate neighbours of the Geats) it should come as no surprise that these peoples might share an overlapping store of heroic tales.

: : : 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.

: : There are only three ship-mounds recorded in Enland (all in the
: : same place) very many other A-S and viking age mound burials
: : occur elsewhere. The English king in question was of course a
: : Dane.

: Nonetheless, England has three more ship-mounds than Rohan, and the Anglo-Saxons (and Danes and Frisians and Norwegians and Celts etc.) all arrived by boat. The Rohirrim got to their land by riding their horses (and/or other means of land-based travel).

The meagre maritime prowess of the Anglo-Saxons (particularly before the advent of the Vikings) just does not merit an outright contrast being drawn to the Rohirrim.