SMDH seeing Great Man theory being parroted on Hexbear, the allied victory over Mordor had way more to do with the five previous centuries of political-economic development in Gondor and specifically in the fertile and populous region of Lebennin than it did with a single 50 year old nerd from the completely irrelevant North Kingdoms.
And not to burst your bubble here but Frodo Baggins, then in his 30s, was documented to be "companions" with hobbits as young as 18 and 11. Google the Baggin's Black Book if you don't belive belive me. But that is the kind of great man you are stanning.
Also, Sauron drew fell creatures to his banner from crevices and pits across Middle Earth. This is clearly a sign of genuine organic support for his program. Can the conscripts of Gondor say the same about their love for the bitter, insane old tyrant Denethor? And what of Rohan? For every knight in splendid armor riding a massive warhorse there must be ten or twenty farmer families toiling in serfdom to support the class of warrior elites. Do these toilers get a say in their dynastic absolute monarchy? If Sauron can make yield the odious powers of Gondor and Rohan, while making thus precarious the feudalist world balance, long live the butcher Sauron. :bordiga-despair:
Strange dudes with beards distributing rings is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical magical ceremony.
also now I want to make The Boys crossover memes with Butcher as Sauron hunting the magical supes
lol what no, they won purely, 120% because a volcano erupted at just the right time and destroyed the entire capital of their enemies. pure dumb fucking luck.
the rest of the book is nearly entirely made up hagiography to cement the soft coup of gondor by a vagrant and a vagrant with a beard.
elves dont exist. elrond is just a man. sauron is also just a man, if he exists at all. he probably doesnt, if he ever did.
The Red Book of Westmarch is, of course, not actually written by Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam. It is a much later concoction, and it's fundamental purpose is to sell a narrative legitimizing the Fairbairns of the Towers' status as one of the three paramount families of the Shire,without compromising the politically important narrative of their half-legendary progenitor, Samwise Gamgee as an ascended commoner.
To this end, it interweaves a complicated web of triple anachronism. On the one hand, it anachronistically projects the prosperity and easygoing lifestyle of the contemporary gentry onto the historic characters of Peregrin Took, Meriadoc Brandybuck, and Frodo Baggins, portraying the three of them (all, other records make clear, experienced tribal war-leaders skilled in guerrilla warfare well before their mercenary expedition to the south lands) as bumbling hedonists before they were "toughened up" by their travels. On the other hand, it conflates Frodo Baggins, a historic personage who willed his considerable fortune to Samwise Gamgee, who was probably his homosexual lover, with Frodo Nine-Fingers, generally thought to be a wholly mythic personage belonging to an entirely earlier era.
Thus, while "Merry" and "Pippin" grow into formidable leaders in the courts of Southern sovereigns, Frodo (the originator of the Gamgee fortune) is saving the world, and Samwise Gamgee is making it all possible.
Lol, I'm wholeheartedly accepting this becuase it validates my prejudice against the hobbits, they simply should not have been in the book. You know what makes the Silmarillion better than LOTR, no hobbits in the First Age.
I would maybe also add that the only reason Tom Bombodil makes an unnecessary appearance is to legitimize their heretical worship of him, instead of the one god Eru.
you made a lot of weird stuff up, but anyway, i think the hobbits are in the book just for flavor, the main thrust is the legitimization of so-called aragorn.
i copied this from another site and i don't fully agree with this, i think the hobbit stuff was clearly added for reasons probably related to what this guy is talking about but definitely the main point is aragon.
and what do you mean by "so-called"? i've never seen it suggested that that wasn't his name, though certainly there's plenty of debate over his true status/lineage/whatever.
(also i meant to reply to @Judge_Juche, whose post was more closely related to mine)
oh yeah super likely that this vagrant who intends to steal a kingdom (having the current ruler and his heir assassinated under suspicious circumstances, etc) is called "revered king"
yeah right.
"aragorn" is to this dude as "god emperor" is to trump.
i mean, he very much succeeded. and i don't know if his parents named him aragorn, but he certainly never went by anything else according to anything i've read on the subject
yeah, but those were clearly temporary monikers, not actual names. i'm just saying it makes sense to call him what he probably would have been called by other people at the time.
first of all, if people called him anything "in his time", it was elessar, though this too was engineered propaganda.
[W]ord went through the City: 'The King is come again indeed.' And they named him Elfstone, because of the green stone that he wore, and so the name which it was foretold at his birth that he should bear was chosen for him by his own people.
(elessar means elfstone)
and aragorn was another one of these monikers. it's all false identities.
alright, sure. i feel kind of gross getting this close to defending a monarch, so it's definitely not worth going any farther here. i think it's a little ridiculous to put quotes around aragorn, but it's not a big deal.
SMDH seeing Great Man theory being parroted on Hexbear, the allied victory over Mordor had way more to do with the five previous centuries of political-economic development in Gondor and specifically in the fertile and populous region of Lebennin than it did with a single 50 year old nerd from the completely irrelevant North Kingdoms.
And not to burst your bubble here but Frodo Baggins, then in his 30s, was documented to be "companions" with hobbits as young as 18 and 11. Google the Baggin's Black Book if you don't belive belive me. But that is the kind of great man you are stanning.
Feels revisionist. Sauron has a racially diverse army and his main opponents are landed gentry and other petit bourgeois. Seems a little sus to me.
Also, Sauron drew fell creatures to his banner from crevices and pits across Middle Earth. This is clearly a sign of genuine organic support for his program. Can the conscripts of Gondor say the same about their love for the bitter, insane old tyrant Denethor? And what of Rohan? For every knight in splendid armor riding a massive warhorse there must be ten or twenty farmer families toiling in serfdom to support the class of warrior elites. Do these toilers get a say in their dynastic absolute monarchy? If Sauron can make yield the odious powers of Gondor and Rohan, while making thus precarious the feudalist world balance, long live the butcher Sauron. :bordiga-despair:
also now I want to make The Boys crossover memes with Butcher as Sauron hunting the magical supes
I just want to point out that the only direct democracy in Middle Earth were the Ents.
how do you know sauron even exists? or ever existed? he could be like termagant, entirely made up by the western hegemony.
The useual kind of propaganda making up stories about a fancy lighthouse
lol what no, they won purely, 120% because a volcano erupted at just the right time and destroyed the entire capital of their enemies. pure dumb fucking luck.
the rest of the book is nearly entirely made up hagiography to cement the soft coup of gondor by a vagrant and a vagrant with a beard.
elves dont exist. elrond is just a man. sauron is also just a man, if he exists at all. he probably doesnt, if he ever did.
(@Judge_Juche this was meant as a reply to you)
Lol, I'm wholeheartedly accepting this becuase it validates my prejudice against the hobbits, they simply should not have been in the book. You know what makes the Silmarillion better than LOTR, no hobbits in the First Age.
I would maybe also add that the only reason Tom Bombodil makes an unnecessary appearance is to legitimize their heretical worship of him, instead of the one god Eru.
you made a lot of weird stuff up, but anyway, i think the hobbits are in the book just for flavor, the main thrust is the legitimization of so-called aragorn.
i copied this from another site and i don't fully agree with this, i think the hobbit stuff was clearly added for reasons probably related to what this guy is talking about but definitely the main point is aragon.
and what do you mean by "so-called"? i've never seen it suggested that that wasn't his name, though certainly there's plenty of debate over his true status/lineage/whatever.
(also i meant to reply to @Judge_Juche, whose post was more closely related to mine)
oh yeah super likely that this vagrant who intends to steal a kingdom (having the current ruler and his heir assassinated under suspicious circumstances, etc) is called "revered king"
yeah right.
"aragorn" is to this dude as "god emperor" is to trump.
i mean, he very much succeeded. and i don't know if his parents named him aragorn, but he certainly never went by anything else according to anything i've read on the subject
you cant have read much on the subject then. he went by various codenames like estel, strider and elessar.
yeah, but those were clearly temporary monikers, not actual names. i'm just saying it makes sense to call him what he probably would have been called by other people at the time.
first of all, if people called him anything "in his time", it was elessar, though this too was engineered propaganda.
(elessar means elfstone)
and aragorn was another one of these monikers. it's all false identities.
alright, sure. i feel kind of gross getting this close to defending a monarch, so it's definitely not worth going any farther here. i think it's a little ridiculous to put quotes around aragorn, but it's not a big deal.
I'm torn between enjoying the fantastic bit and going "ummmm akshually" about how Gondor is in a state of massive imperial decline.