If anything, Hastings was my first thought as an argument to the contrary. You have after all just pointed out that it was a numerically larger battle than Helms Deep. Besides which it was the crucial point in a conflict between three western European powers which determined much of the future fate of the world - the effects of which are evident today.Zeeky_Santos said:For example, the Battle of Hastings, 1066.ENKC said:Please justify that, as I happen to think that statement is incorrect.Zeeky_Santos said:Despite the fact that the scale of events in LotR surpasses the nearest historical equivalent (medieval era) in almost every way.ENKC said:Of course not. I had thought I even spelled that out. It's a matter of scale. LotR is supposed to be a breathtaking epic, and yet I found little in it that approached real events from history in that regard.Rararaz said:To be honest I think that the Lord of the Rings films have contributed to Tolkein's books being approached from a less literary angle than it should be as it is a book and one that was written 70 years ago. It is fine to not enjoy any piece of work but to suggest that Tolkein was overrated because you do not enjoy his writing style is a ludicrous statement. Tolkein does not have "pacing" issues, he simply wrote in a very descriptive style that due to people seemingly having shorter attention span comes in for critisism that it should not.
Just checking because I am confused, are you saying that a book's "epic-ness" is judged by how many people are killed in it?ENKC said:I have read LotR and found it to be achingly disinteresting. I have read my share of long books in my time, but none which I considered so dull. Perhaps I just found it hard to be impressed by ZOMG HELMS DEEP when I liked to read about the battles of Alexander and Hannibal. They defeated more dudes in single battles than Sauron did in his lifetime.
Yes, I know the battling was only one aspect. I'm just saying that for me I found it hard to consider the scale of the stories as truly 'epic' by comparison to actual history.
A suitably epic battle that took place and saw the last time English soil was invaded by an offensive force and conquered.
It was estimated that William of Normandy had 5,000 infantry and 3,000 knights. King Harold's forces had 8,500 men at his disposal. Archers fired volleys, cavalry was countered with lines of pikemen and all in all there were numerous casualties on either side, blood everywhere etc etc.
Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/NORhastings.htm
Compare to say, the defence of Helm's Deep, you've got a tiny minuscule force, albeit with a better strategic foothold, versus an army of '10,000' orcs. They only manage to survive when cavalry arrives 12 hours later.
From any objective stand point, that is by definition 'epic'.
Or the Battle on the fields of Pelennor, wherein Gondor has a mere 2,700 defenders of the city walls, the next day 6,000 cavalry arrive, but even then are outnumbered by an arriving force of oliphants (Giant fucking elephant cavalry). The only way the battle ends is when a force of undead traitors show up to finally rest in peace through slaughter. But all too late the damage is done and the force of the good guys is a tiny little tinyness.
If you don't fidn that scale 'epic' then the only possible explanation I can find for you is that the insane numbers of dead from the modern wars of the 20th century have warped your sense of historical proportion to say that less than a million dead is in no way epic.
I note that by "From any objective standpoint" you in fact mean "From my personal subjective standpoint".
You appear to be focused on the disparity of numbers between forces as essential to the 'epic' scale. I fail to see why, but one need only look to Thermopylae in such a case. '300' aside, it was a real event which far exceeds your fictional example.
"the only possible explanation" is hyperbole on your part, nothing more. "the modern wars of the 20th century have warped your sense of historical proportion" would be insulting were it not plainly silly. I have not so much as mentioned anything later than the 11th Century.
"to say that less than a million dead is in no way epic" is a pure straw man, considering no-one has said it. No-one at all.
I reiterate, I find nothing in LotR comparable to the grand historical scale of the conquests of Alexander or his ilk.