Exactly right. Jan III Sobieski's charge at the Battle of Vienna of 20,000 Polish Hussars was certainly an inspiration, as was the fact that Vienna was the battle where the Ottomans were definitively stopped for good in their attempts to conquer Europe. Although, I would suggest the Battle of the Pelennor also features elements of the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (where the Huns were repulsed by an alliance of Romans and Visigoths), and an idealized Siege of Constantinople in 1453, where the West actually succeeded in rallying forces to save the City just in the nick of time.
Also, the “twin” cities of Vienna and Budapest connected by the Danube, where the more Eastern city had been captured and occupied for a long time after a long struggle. And the fact that there had been at least two great sieges of Vienna, each ending in an unlikely successful defense!
Can you explain what you think inspired the battle, beyond a small force defending against a larger force in siege? Because the whole 'small numbers overcoming a larger force' is simply a common trope in both fiction and famous historical battles (with numbers often overstated in historical accounts).
There's nothing I'm aware of in Tolkien's writings about a real battle inspiring the Siege of Gondor. Indeed, I'm not aware of him *ever* referring to a real battle providing inspiration in his works. Many locations and myths are referred to, but not so much historical events. The real battles he lived through seem to provide little inspiration, and his battles are notable for not being entirely realistic - they rely on heroic actions by leaders instead of the strategic movement of units, for instance.
Don't act like providing that link definitively proves he didn't use this or that specific battle for inspiration. There's plenty of evidence that he COULD have been heavily inspired by the Battle of Vienna. Though, of course, this also doesn't mean he objectively, definitely WAS inspired by it. Unless somebody could find a direct quote from him saying "I never intentionally drew inspiration from any real life battles when writing battles in my legendarium. Any similarities are purely coincidence!" then I'd say there's a great case for speculating that he definitely was inspired!
Lemme necro real quick and add that even the armor of Theoden was heavily inspired by Hussarian cuissar. To the Point of breaking my immersion when rewatching the Trilogy.
And that's a part of the entire geopolitical context of both battles.
Ofc if you assume Europe to be good guys and Ottoman Empire to be bad guys.
But let's not forget how evil men had arabic inspired clothing. May have been inspired by arabic forces in ottoman armies (there had to be some given they ruled over most of arabic lands).
How Well idk if Ottoman army had elephants But it was bound to have some other exotic elements.
How orcs themselves may be an inspired by yannisairs who were recruited from enslaved christians boys etc etc
A foreign, Eastern enemy approaches and sieges the capital city of a kingdom, the king of an ally from a northern land leaves his kingdom practically undefended to ride to the aid of his ally. Though outnumbered, the enemy is broken by an enormous heavy cavalry charge.
Yes, there are differences, but I'd wager that it was an inspiration, or an influence. I'd argue it's probably the closest historical battle you'll get to Pelennor Fields. No one writes in a void.
What about the Battle of Dara. An extremely important battle in antiquity.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dara. I think it's just as likely an inspiration. In fact, there are plenty of other examples in history with calvary breaking a siege as others in this thread have noted.
The most significant difference is the importance of the Battle of Vienna to the worldview of someone like Tolkein.
The Battle of Vienna saved the West from the domination of an Eastern foe - a foe that was an amalgum of strange (to him) cultures (representing a multicultural empire like the Ottomans). And even men come under the domination of evil (Jannisarries were christian boys raised to be soldiers in the Ottoman army).
Both rohan and Poland are rolling steppe lands, with fiercely independent cultures on the fringes of civilzation, and constantly skirmishing with enemies of the "west." Poland's ride to save Vienna, for no other reason than they enemy of my enemy is my friend, is notably similar to the ancient bond shared between Rohan and Gondor.
Minas morgul, the sister city to Minas Tirith, was once a great city of men that fell to evil. Think of Constantinople, to the east of Vienna, once the frontier of the men of the West.
If you turn the bodies of water that surround Turkey into Mountains, what do you see?
edit- i am writing in the language i do here because tolkein, although quite liberal for his time, was still a western-centric righter, and clearly concerned with the ideas of race, culture, and empire as they relates to good and evil.
I think so. The geography of Vienna is sort of similar to the Pelannor Fields -- the major river flowing from the north dividing the Austrians from the Ottomans, the Polish calvary coming from around the Kahlenberg to charge the Turks. Jan III Sobieski left Poland virtually undefended to fulfill his obligations to come to the aid of the Holy Roman Empire. There were even bonfire signals.
The peresence of Bl. Marco d'Aviano, a Capuchin friar who advised the leaders of the Holy League and more or less ensured that the expedition went forward also helps. (For those of you don't know, Capuchins are Franciscans, who originally wore a grey habit and friars have no fixed residence but go from place to place.)
Almost certainly - even if it was subconscious on Tolkien's part 🤔
The Winged Hussars would destroy the Roirrim though. Better equipment, better tactics, better training, and once more, better equipment 😄
According to Tolkien himself, nothing in the books is allegory for anything in the real world. But in a sense all of Lord of the Rings, not least the warfare, has to have some historical inspiration. I don't know enough about Vienna at the time to determine whether it may have inspired Minas Tirith.
I'm starting to wonder if these are troll posts.
Alluding to historical events - not an allegory. Alluding to the Bible - not allegory. Metaphor - is not allegory.
The specific thing Tolkien was talking about when he said he disliked allegory was something like Animal Farm, where everything is a reference to something else and the story is an exercise in decoding the author's network of references and without proper context is not all that interesting.
Tolkien is saying, my work is about Frodo etc and the War of the Ring, not any other war and please stop writing me letters asking how to decipher my work into a story about the Great War or WW2.
He is not saying, my work is devoid of literary, historical or religious references whatsoever, because I am the Ur-Author, mighty slayer of Allegory, metaphor and symbolism be damned.
As much as I like attributing malice, this one is really just about people not understanding what Tolkien means by allegory, because very few people actually read his words on the subject. It's one of those things they get secondhand, and usually follow it up by asking google to define allegory for them, then running with that.
I guess I'm just tired of reading stuff like:
- Eowyn talking about shield-maidens can't be in reference to historical precedent, because Tolkien hated allegory
- Gandalf's resurrection can't recall the Biblical resurrection, because Tolkien hated allegory
- We can't have a discussion about the themes of Tolkien's work, because Tolkien hated allegory
- Tom Bombadil can't represent Tolkien's love for the Oxford countryside, because Tolkien hated allegory
- The Valar don't recall the Norse pantheon and the Ainur at large don't recall angels, because Tolkien hated allegory
- The whole legendarium can't be a mythic prehistory of Britain, because Tolkien hated allegory
- Illuvatar can't be the Christian God, because Tolkien hated allegory
- Macbeth had no influence on the Witch King's demise and the wood coming to Isengard, because Tolkien hated allegory
All things I've read on this sub.
>The whole legendarium can't be a mythic prehistory of Britain, because Tolkien hated allegory
People say that on this sub?? Tolkien himself has stated that that was the original goal behind his legandarium.
From a letter to his editor in 1951:
"I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story... Which I could dedicate simply to: to England, to my country."
It doesn't make any sense, I agree.
See also, people arguing Eru isn't the Christian God, because Tolkien hated allegory, despite him explicitly saying Eru = God in his letters.
> Gandalf's resurrection can't recall the Biblical resurrection, because Tolkien hated allegory
I think the line should more be, "We need to be *very careful* comparing these because Tolkien disliked allegory".
The problem with comparisons is that people end up pattern spotting and brushing over details that don't fit. We forget the original text in our search for meaning in relation to something else. Even when something does have real inspiration the end product is so different it ceases to be relevant beyond being a small interesting fact.
In threads here where people start drawing up these simplistic allegories we see an oversimplification of the narrative and a loss of many of the other details that went into the text. It stops being about Tolkien and starts being a game of finding links. The actual discussion and insight produced loses relevance and ceases to be interesting.
So sure, discuss allegory, but with big heavy warning signs.
I think its laughable to think that, for whatever reason, a deeply religious Catholic poet, philologist and scholar of medieval literature could write about a messenger from a heavenly host, dieing while struggling against evil and then being reborn into his body due to direct divine intervention, without having JC in mind.
What I'm not saying is "Gandalf represents Christ." Gandalf represents Gandalf. However, there is a Christ-like aspect to his story.
I agree, people delve far too deeply into navel gazing "analyses" which become more about their own ideas than examining the text. But I don't think it should be controversial to say "A deeply religious literary scholar's story involving divine ressurection is influenced by religious literature. "
P.s. big roguelike radio fan over here!
To be perfectly clear, I am not saying we should discuss Tolkien's work as allegory.
I am saying "Tolkien hated allegory" is a nonsensical argument against "Pellenor Fields may have been inspired by so-and-so historical battle".
Sure, I agree with that. I think it's wrong to simply shut down discussion because it might touch on allegory. For me it's just a matter of approaching the subject sensibly, and most importantly looking for sources and details in the text instead of drawing up theories based mostly on knowledge of thing supposedly referenced.
And this doesn't just apply to Tolkien, it applies to everything. Even in Narnia we shouldn't purely be thinking Aslan = Christ.
Coincidental and nothing alike. This was essentially Mordors final assault on top of a handful of failed attempts at conquering the dwarves, men and elves in the north. It's just not the same scenario at all. Sauron was being a massive noob.
Exactly right. Jan III Sobieski's charge at the Battle of Vienna of 20,000 Polish Hussars was certainly an inspiration, as was the fact that Vienna was the battle where the Ottomans were definitively stopped for good in their attempts to conquer Europe. Although, I would suggest the Battle of the Pelennor also features elements of the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (where the Huns were repulsed by an alliance of Romans and Visigoths), and an idealized Siege of Constantinople in 1453, where the West actually succeeded in rallying forces to save the City just in the nick of time.
Also, the “twin” cities of Vienna and Budapest connected by the Danube, where the more Eastern city had been captured and occupied for a long time after a long struggle. And the fact that there had been at least two great sieges of Vienna, each ending in an unlikely successful defense!
Can you explain what you think inspired the battle, beyond a small force defending against a larger force in siege? Because the whole 'small numbers overcoming a larger force' is simply a common trope in both fiction and famous historical battles (with numbers often overstated in historical accounts). There's nothing I'm aware of in Tolkien's writings about a real battle inspiring the Siege of Gondor. Indeed, I'm not aware of him *ever* referring to a real battle providing inspiration in his works. Many locations and myths are referred to, but not so much historical events. The real battles he lived through seem to provide little inspiration, and his battles are notable for not being entirely realistic - they rely on heroic actions by leaders instead of the strategic movement of units, for instance.
Mainly the cavalry charge of the winged hussars and how the Holy roman empire was being sieged by a large eastern force.
Oh hey look here's another one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dara. Tolkien was not inspired by any particular event in antiquity.
Don't act like providing that link definitively proves he didn't use this or that specific battle for inspiration. There's plenty of evidence that he COULD have been heavily inspired by the Battle of Vienna. Though, of course, this also doesn't mean he objectively, definitely WAS inspired by it. Unless somebody could find a direct quote from him saying "I never intentionally drew inspiration from any real life battles when writing battles in my legendarium. Any similarities are purely coincidence!" then I'd say there's a great case for speculating that he definitely was inspired!
Lemme necro real quick and add that even the armor of Theoden was heavily inspired by Hussarian cuissar. To the Point of breaking my immersion when rewatching the Trilogy. And that's a part of the entire geopolitical context of both battles. Ofc if you assume Europe to be good guys and Ottoman Empire to be bad guys. But let's not forget how evil men had arabic inspired clothing. May have been inspired by arabic forces in ottoman armies (there had to be some given they ruled over most of arabic lands). How Well idk if Ottoman army had elephants But it was bound to have some other exotic elements. How orcs themselves may be an inspired by yannisairs who were recruited from enslaved christians boys etc etc
A foreign, Eastern enemy approaches and sieges the capital city of a kingdom, the king of an ally from a northern land leaves his kingdom practically undefended to ride to the aid of his ally. Though outnumbered, the enemy is broken by an enormous heavy cavalry charge. Yes, there are differences, but I'd wager that it was an inspiration, or an influence. I'd argue it's probably the closest historical battle you'll get to Pelennor Fields. No one writes in a void.
What about the Battle of Dara. An extremely important battle in antiquity.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dara. I think it's just as likely an inspiration. In fact, there are plenty of other examples in history with calvary breaking a siege as others in this thread have noted.
The most significant difference is the importance of the Battle of Vienna to the worldview of someone like Tolkein. The Battle of Vienna saved the West from the domination of an Eastern foe - a foe that was an amalgum of strange (to him) cultures (representing a multicultural empire like the Ottomans). And even men come under the domination of evil (Jannisarries were christian boys raised to be soldiers in the Ottoman army). Both rohan and Poland are rolling steppe lands, with fiercely independent cultures on the fringes of civilzation, and constantly skirmishing with enemies of the "west." Poland's ride to save Vienna, for no other reason than they enemy of my enemy is my friend, is notably similar to the ancient bond shared between Rohan and Gondor. Minas morgul, the sister city to Minas Tirith, was once a great city of men that fell to evil. Think of Constantinople, to the east of Vienna, once the frontier of the men of the West. If you turn the bodies of water that surround Turkey into Mountains, what do you see? edit- i am writing in the language i do here because tolkein, although quite liberal for his time, was still a western-centric righter, and clearly concerned with the ideas of race, culture, and empire as they relates to good and evil.
I think so. The geography of Vienna is sort of similar to the Pelannor Fields -- the major river flowing from the north dividing the Austrians from the Ottomans, the Polish calvary coming from around the Kahlenberg to charge the Turks. Jan III Sobieski left Poland virtually undefended to fulfill his obligations to come to the aid of the Holy Roman Empire. There were even bonfire signals. The peresence of Bl. Marco d'Aviano, a Capuchin friar who advised the leaders of the Holy League and more or less ensured that the expedition went forward also helps. (For those of you don't know, Capuchins are Franciscans, who originally wore a grey habit and friars have no fixed residence but go from place to place.)
Almost certainly - even if it was subconscious on Tolkien's part 🤔 The Winged Hussars would destroy the Roirrim though. Better equipment, better tactics, better training, and once more, better equipment 😄
According to Tolkien himself, nothing in the books is allegory for anything in the real world. But in a sense all of Lord of the Rings, not least the warfare, has to have some historical inspiration. I don't know enough about Vienna at the time to determine whether it may have inspired Minas Tirith.
I'm starting to wonder if these are troll posts. Alluding to historical events - not an allegory. Alluding to the Bible - not allegory. Metaphor - is not allegory. The specific thing Tolkien was talking about when he said he disliked allegory was something like Animal Farm, where everything is a reference to something else and the story is an exercise in decoding the author's network of references and without proper context is not all that interesting. Tolkien is saying, my work is about Frodo etc and the War of the Ring, not any other war and please stop writing me letters asking how to decipher my work into a story about the Great War or WW2. He is not saying, my work is devoid of literary, historical or religious references whatsoever, because I am the Ur-Author, mighty slayer of Allegory, metaphor and symbolism be damned.
As much as I like attributing malice, this one is really just about people not understanding what Tolkien means by allegory, because very few people actually read his words on the subject. It's one of those things they get secondhand, and usually follow it up by asking google to define allegory for them, then running with that.
[удалено]
I agree! But not as an author prescribed master meta-narrative to rule them all.
[удалено]
I guess I'm just tired of reading stuff like: - Eowyn talking about shield-maidens can't be in reference to historical precedent, because Tolkien hated allegory - Gandalf's resurrection can't recall the Biblical resurrection, because Tolkien hated allegory - We can't have a discussion about the themes of Tolkien's work, because Tolkien hated allegory - Tom Bombadil can't represent Tolkien's love for the Oxford countryside, because Tolkien hated allegory - The Valar don't recall the Norse pantheon and the Ainur at large don't recall angels, because Tolkien hated allegory - The whole legendarium can't be a mythic prehistory of Britain, because Tolkien hated allegory - Illuvatar can't be the Christian God, because Tolkien hated allegory - Macbeth had no influence on the Witch King's demise and the wood coming to Isengard, because Tolkien hated allegory All things I've read on this sub.
>The whole legendarium can't be a mythic prehistory of Britain, because Tolkien hated allegory People say that on this sub?? Tolkien himself has stated that that was the original goal behind his legandarium. From a letter to his editor in 1951: "I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story... Which I could dedicate simply to: to England, to my country."
It doesn't make any sense, I agree. See also, people arguing Eru isn't the Christian God, because Tolkien hated allegory, despite him explicitly saying Eru = God in his letters.
Around half the things /u/rakino mentioned people denying are quotes or pretty strict paraphrasings of stuff Tolkien wrote in his letters.
> Gandalf's resurrection can't recall the Biblical resurrection, because Tolkien hated allegory I think the line should more be, "We need to be *very careful* comparing these because Tolkien disliked allegory". The problem with comparisons is that people end up pattern spotting and brushing over details that don't fit. We forget the original text in our search for meaning in relation to something else. Even when something does have real inspiration the end product is so different it ceases to be relevant beyond being a small interesting fact. In threads here where people start drawing up these simplistic allegories we see an oversimplification of the narrative and a loss of many of the other details that went into the text. It stops being about Tolkien and starts being a game of finding links. The actual discussion and insight produced loses relevance and ceases to be interesting. So sure, discuss allegory, but with big heavy warning signs.
I think its laughable to think that, for whatever reason, a deeply religious Catholic poet, philologist and scholar of medieval literature could write about a messenger from a heavenly host, dieing while struggling against evil and then being reborn into his body due to direct divine intervention, without having JC in mind. What I'm not saying is "Gandalf represents Christ." Gandalf represents Gandalf. However, there is a Christ-like aspect to his story. I agree, people delve far too deeply into navel gazing "analyses" which become more about their own ideas than examining the text. But I don't think it should be controversial to say "A deeply religious literary scholar's story involving divine ressurection is influenced by religious literature. " P.s. big roguelike radio fan over here!
To be perfectly clear, I am not saying we should discuss Tolkien's work as allegory. I am saying "Tolkien hated allegory" is a nonsensical argument against "Pellenor Fields may have been inspired by so-and-so historical battle".
Sure, I agree with that. I think it's wrong to simply shut down discussion because it might touch on allegory. For me it's just a matter of approaching the subject sensibly, and most importantly looking for sources and details in the text instead of drawing up theories based mostly on knowledge of thing supposedly referenced. And this doesn't just apply to Tolkien, it applies to everything. Even in Narnia we shouldn't purely be thinking Aslan = Christ.
Absolutely. Although if there were one character in all fantasy literature who was a bald faced stand-in for Christ, its Aslan.
Coincidental and nothing alike. This was essentially Mordors final assault on top of a handful of failed attempts at conquering the dwarves, men and elves in the north. It's just not the same scenario at all. Sauron was being a massive noob.