TTT: Book 3: Chapters 5-7

[BarbaraN]

TTT: Book 3: Chapters 5-7

We now leave the Hobbits and the Ents to their own plans and revenge and join Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas and the Rohirrims for their part in this scheme of things. I might also suggest you read Appendix A: II, The House of Eorl, as preparation for this next set of chapters.

May 12-18
TTT: Book 3: Chapters 5-7
Appendix A: II The House of Eorl.
5. The White Rider
6. The King of the Golden Hall
7. Helm's Deep

[BarbaraN]

Gandalf seems to have an uncertain memory. I gather this is because of his reincarnation. This actually explains a lot. Even early on in the book he seemed to have an uncertain memory. This works for me and explains a lot. Gandalf has a vague foreknowledge of things but not a detailed knowledge or a "for sure" knowledge. Probably because he is an incarnated Maia. He most likely knew a lot more as a Maia but in his human form only had vague memories and "feelings" about things.

[lorien]

Gandalf does have a funny memory. This reminds me of Quest for Eredor in which he behaves the same way--kind of remember some things he didn't know before, remembering things he had forgotten before and then forgetting things he knew before. I have the feeling he knew quite a bit when he was first sent out to Middle-earth but starts to lose it. Here he only vaguly remembers his name was Gandalf. Sometimes he just gets lost in his thoughts like forgetting to tell Gimli his message from Galadriel. But then he seems to now know a lot about what has happened even if he wasn't there (like Merry and Pippin going off with Treebeard). He seemed to have known about Frodo's close-encounter on Amon Hen and seems to have be part of stopping Sauron from making contact with him. He knew that Frodo had left the company but didn't know that Sam had gone with him, and he no longer can "track" Frodo. He knows the hobbits were "meant" to connect with Treebeard and what is going to happen there. he even points out the inevitability of everyone being where they are right now because again it was "meant" to be. He knows the next step is defending Rohan from Sauruman.

In one curious statement he knows that Aragorn gave his word to Eomer to go to Edoras but Aragorn didn't tell him and Gandalf certainly wasn't there. He knows that Sauruman was around the the area the previous morning checking things out but says he didn't see him.

It is all very curious. But I wonder if this has something to do with Tolkien's interest in Time. I just got Flieger's A Question of Time but I haven't read it yet. Maybe it is time I breeze through this?

Or maybe Gandalf is just in the early stages of Wizard's Alzheimer.

[lorien]

Of course I always think of Legolas as a fairly young man. And I haven't really ever thought of him being particularly wise with age. However, in this chapter he is constantly reminding us of his age. Like Fangorn making him feel "young" again. I don't recall this being a significant topic before but it surely comes up a lot in this chapter. Maybe this is another "Time" thing. Or maybe the subject of Time was on Tolkien's mind a lot during the writing of this chapter.

[lorien]

In a chapter full of oddities, there is another strange statement made and this by Aragorn. He names Gandalf as the White Rider. OK, that becomes self-evident-- but later on. At the point that Aragorn gives him his name, he most likely hasn't even seen Gandalf on a horse and there isn't a horse in sight. Nor do they expect one. Remember they made a lot of remarks about having to walk all the way to Edoras. Now Gandalf had ridden Shadowfax before to Rivendell but had arrived there and sent Shadowfax back before Aragorn and his party of hobbits even gotten there.

What is curious is that Tolkien had Aragorn give this name to Gandalf before the arrival of the horses when he could have just as easily given it to him after the arrival of the horses and, even more effectively, when they were mounted and ready to go. Tolkien was too meticulous a writer to have this designation bestowed at this point before there was reason to grant it so I think it was deliberate but darned if I can figure out the point.

[lorien]

Chapter 6. The King of the Golden Hall

In this chapter we first meet Eowyn, and actually, I may have a radical mind change here on the status of women in Tolkien's book to the way they are depicted in the movie. In the movie, some women must assume male roles in order to be considered the equal of men, and in the case of Eowyn, she must compete and force herself into that role. She must be a warrior. Yet, at least at this early stage, in the book Tolkien honors her as in equal status and power to her brother without her having to take on a male role.

This is toward the end of the chapter. Normally an aged king like Theoden would stay at home to guard his people and provide leadership while his son would lead his army, especially on a rescue mission. However, Theoden's son was killed so he has decided to go himself. Which means someone must have the all important of job of essentially the king in his absence, with all the power and responsibilities and probably in actuality if he does not return. The nearest person of high enough rank is his nephew Eomer who is coming with him leading his own contingent of soldiers. So he choses instead (also of the House of Earl) Eowyn to be his regent. Unfortunately, he did not think of it all by himself and it was the suggestion of Hama.
--------

Hama: "There is Eowyn, daughter of Eomund, his [Eomer] sister. She is fearless and high-hearted. All love her. Let her be as lord to the Eorlingas while we are gone."

"It shall be so," said Theoden. "let the heralds announce to the folk that the Lady Eowyn will lead them."

Then the king sat upon a seat before his doors, and Eowyn knelt before him and received from his a sword and a fair corslet. "Farewell sister-daughter!" he said. "dark is the hour, yet maybe we shall return to the Golden hall. But in Dunharrow the people may long defend themselves..."
-------

So she will have actually the second highest power of the land beside the king and will not only rule but lead any necessary defenses. She is truly empowered without having to take on the role of a warrior.

In the move it is quite different. She wants to fight like one of the boys and considers it (and I would too in the way it is depicted in the movie) an insult to her to be relegated to leading the women and children. In the movie Theoden is sending her and them to safety. In the book she is being given the status of Stewart or Regent (I'm not sure what term is correct) while the soldiers are going to battle.

Now this brings up the interesting concept of what places woman as equals to men. Are traditional male roles the only acceptable standard? And must a woman become like a man to be considered equal? Or is it whether a woman is treated with respect and considered in status and ability as an equal? Eowyn is in fact being given the second most powerful position in Rohan second only to the King.

Now later on this may change. And I would have preferred it if Theoden had thought of this himself instead of totally overlooking Eowyn until he was reminded of her. But as far as this chapter and incident is concerned, I would have to award the point to Tolkien as treating woman more as empowered women in their own right over PJ.

[lorien]

To you experts on feudal warfare and crowning of kings--

Tolkien goes to great pains to describe all the bejeweled weapons -- the Rohirin guards had green emeralds on their sword handles. Now all these jewels and gold on weaponry and armor do not seem practical to me. It would make them heavier and less efficient. Gold adds a lot of weight and to a sword cut must seem like butter. I would think in battle they would want more plain and streamlined weapons. But I could be wrong here. After all jewels served Smaug well as protective armor(except for the spot he missed).

I also never thought much about the headgear of kings -- I assumed they all wore crowns. However, they don't seem to wear them in LOTR. The headgear of choice is a jewel on the forehead. Which was actually used?

[Dagor]

Regarding swords and the weights thereof:

One of the major problems attendant upon the use of the "longsword" is the fact that it is heavily unbalanced towards the point end. To partially alleviate this "leverage problem" the handles of such blades were often given large pommels made of lead or iron to assist the hand/ wrist (which forms the fulcrum) in lifting the long blade. A large mass of gold on the handle (if you could afford the precious stuff) would be highly beneficial/ utilitarian as a counter-balance. Add a few showy gems and you also have a weapon of high prestige/ appearance value that proclaims the wealth/ status of the bearer. As military activities in pre-modern, pre-gunfire periods often involved as much show and display as actual functionality, the bejeweled weapons of the king's honour guard seem quite in keeping with the times, it marked them out as knights of the realm, and picked warriors of higher skill than the common ranks.

Regarding Middle-earth crowns:

The crown JRRT designed for the Numenoreans is a suspiciously close copy of the Upper Egyptian White Crown. All JRRT did was add a couple of splayed out wings to the tall, somewhat silly (to my eyes) looking thing. (see the Narmer Palette where the Pharaoh wears the "hedjet" crown, a white mitre-like thing with a rounded-knob at the top). For the later period Kings of Gondor a war helmet was used as the "crown," the late model Aragorn wears (in the book) was also jewel encrusted. Only the King of Arnor wore the simple filet about the brows with a gem in its center. I don't believe it is ever mentioned what the Kings of Rohan wore, but if we can assume their culture is shaped after the Anglo-Saxons, then they would have worn the simple coronet style crown of many points, or crenels (without the cross!).

The movie version went in for filets and tiaras, on its own authority.

[TiggerBear]

Regarding swords and the weights thereofne of the major problems attendant upon the use of the "longsword" is the fact that it is heavily unbalanced towards the point end. To partially alleviate this "leverage problem" the handles of such blades were often given large pommels made of lead or iron to assist the hand/ wrist (which forms the fulcrum) in lifting the long blade. A large mass of gold on the handle (if you could afford the precious stuff) would be highly beneficial/ utilitarian as a counter-balance. Add a few showy gems and you also have a weapon of high prestige/ appearance value that proclaims the wealth/ status of the bearer. As military activities in pre-modern, pre-gunfire periods often involved as much show and display as actual functionality, the bejeweled weapons of the king's honour guard seem quite in keeping with the times, it marked them out as knights of the realm, and picked warriors of higher skill than the common ranks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the blade and the skill of the smith. Not all were badly balanced. And take a good look at mid to early-late armors, if a king could put gold on it they would.
English swords were the most cumbersome. Italian a bit better. Spanish blades were a work of art, true balance and beautiful.

[Dagor]

Hi, Tiggerbear.

Right you are, Tiggerbear, there are many different sword forms and counter-balancing "tricks" used to change the center of balance of swords. But, ALL swords are by nature unbalanced in that the hand is the fulcrum and it grasps one end of the blade while the greater length and weight are beyond the hand. A skilled swordsmith can use several techniques to ameliorate this inherent lack of balance: shorter blade length; thinner blades like rapiers or even foils will put much less weight ahead of the hand; a longer handle will put more counter balancing weight in or behind the hand; a large "decorative" knob on the pommel (with or without jewels!) will also affect this balance, and was the usual method for swords like Anduril, and Glamdring. In some cases, a virtue was made of the "balance" issue, with deliberate exaggerations of the fore-blade in thickness/ width. This produced a willow-leaf shaped blade that was slow moving on the preparation stroke, the lift, but gave added momentum on the cutting stroke, multiplying the force of impact. The description of the barrows blades that the hobbits carried seems to mark their swords as willow-leaf blades. These would characteristically be short swords, good for stabbing thrusts and, although taking a good deal more energy to get them moving, they would have very high "impact" forces when they met enemy flesh. The commercially available version of Sting, as seen in the movie, is a good example of a willow-leaf blade.

[lorien]

My gosh, Dagor, where do you keep all this information!

Thanks! I now know a lot more about swords and crowns than I did before! Tolkien is really a multi-disciplined author. Reading his works takes you well beyond a bunch of words. It is a whole education.

---

Dagor wrote:
Regarding swords and the weights thereof:

One of the major problems attendant upon the use of the "longsword" is the fact that it is heavily unbalanced towards the point end. To partially alleviate this "leverage problem" the handles of such blades were often given large pommels made of lead or iron to assist the hand/ wrist (which forms the fulcrum) in lifting the long blade. A large mass of gold on the handle (if you could afford the precious stuff) would be highly beneficial/ utilitarian as a counter-balance. Add a few showy gems and you also have a weapon of high prestige/ appearance value that proclaims the wealth/ status of the bearer. As military activities in pre-modern, pre-gunfire periods often involved as much show and display as actual functionality, the bejeweled weapons of the king's honour guard seem quite in keeping with the times, it marked them out as knights of the realm, and picked warriors of higher skill than the common ranks.

Regarding Middle-earth crowns:

The crown JRRT designed for the Numenoreans is a suspiciously close copy of the Upper Egyptian White Crown. All JRRT did was add a couple of splayed out wings to the tall, somewhat silly (to my eyes) looking thing. (see the Narmer Palette where the Pharaoh wears the "hedjet" crown, a white mitre-like thing with a rounded-knob at the top). For the later period Kings of Gondor a war helmet was used as the "crown," the late model Aragorn wears (in the book) was also jewel encrusted. Only the King of Arnor wore the simple filet about the brows with a gem in its center. I don't believe it is ever mentioned what the Kings of Rohan wore, but if we can assume their culture is shaped after the Anglo-Saxons, then they would have worn the simple coronet style crown of many points, or crenels (without the cross!).

The movie version went in for filets and tiaras, on its own authority.

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the blade and the skill of the smith. Not all were badly balanced. And take a good look at mid to early-late armors, if a king could put gold on it they would.
English swords were the most cumbersome. Italian a bit better. Spanish blades were a work of art, true balance and beautiful.
-------------------------

And you too Tiggerbear. I hadn't gotten down to your response.

Message Edited by lorien on 05-16-2008 06:33 PM

[lorien]

I found these three chapters very engrossing the first time I read the book. They even seemed to dominate TTT. And they certainly were the heart of the movie. These chapters contain the surprise and exciting action events. But this time around they don't seem as interesting. Gandalf is no longer a surprise -- been there know that. And the battle of Helms Deep -- ho hum. It may be just me, but I'm not finding a lot to engage my mind this time around.

Now the Tom Bombadil chapters were just the opposite. I found them boring the first them around and wondered what they were there for. This time around I found a lot in them that was interesting and I had totally missed the first time. In fact I could find a lot more to say about them if I didn't want to keep rolling along with the read-along.

[TiggerBear]

The description of the barrows blades that the hobbits carried seems to mark their swords as willow-leaf blades. These would characteristically be short swords, good for stabbing thrusts and, although taking a good deal more energy to get them moving, they would have very high "impact" forces when they met enemy flesh. The commercially available version of Sting, as seen in the movie, is a good example of a willow-leaf blade
------------------------------------------------------
Definably!
Side note: First time I saw the actor wielding the movies Glamdring. I got the chuckles, no way that skinny an arm could hold a true version up one handed that long. Much less swing it around. The hobbit's swords were perfectly realized and the had the greatest true weapon probability.

[lorien]

Dagor wrote:
Regarding Middle-earth crowns:

The crown JRRT designed for the Numenoreans is a suspiciously close copy of the Upper Egyptian White Crown. All JRRT did was add a couple of splayed out wings to the tall, somewhat silly (to my eyes) looking thing. (see the Narmer Palette where the Pharaoh wears the "hedjet" crown, a white mitre-like thing with a rounded-knob at the top). For the later period Kings of Gondor a war helmet was used as the "crown," the late model Aragorn wears (in the book) was also jewel encrusted. Only the King of Arnor wore the simple filet about the brows with a gem in its center. I don't believe it is ever mentioned what the Kings of Rohan wore, but if we can assume their culture is shaped after the Anglo-Saxons, then they would have worn the simple coronet style crown of many points, or crenels (without the cross!).

The movie version went in for filets and tiaras, on its own authority.
=================================

Actually, a mis-reading of this reference is what prompted my question. I thought Theoden was only wearing a jewel and not a crown. On a closer reading I think I was mistaken:
-------

In "King of the Golden Hall"

Upon it [a gilded chair] sat a man so bent with age that he seemed almost a dwarf; but his white hair was long and thick and fell in great braids from beneath a thin golden circlet set upon his brow. In the centre upon his forehead a thin golden circlet set upon his brow. In the centre upon his forehead shone a single white diamond.
----------------

The "thin golden circlet" was the crown of some sort that I missed and it had a diamond in the center. So I think you are right on the button in your assumption about the Rohan crown.

[TiggerBear]

---

lorien wrote:
Dagor wrote:
Regarding Middle-earth crowns:

The crown JRRT designed for the Numenoreans is a suspiciously close copy of the Upper Egyptian White Crown. All JRRT did was add a couple of splayed out wings to the tall, somewhat silly (to my eyes) looking thing. (see the Narmer Palette where the Pharaoh wears the "hedjet" crown, a white mitre-like thing with a rounded-knob at the top). For the later period Kings of Gondor a war helmet was used as the "crown," the late model Aragorn wears (in the book) was also jewel encrusted. Only the King of Arnor wore the simple filet about the brows with a gem in its center. I don't believe it is ever mentioned what the Kings of Rohan wore, but if we can assume their culture is shaped after the Anglo-Saxons, then they would have worn the simple coronet style crown of many points, or crenels (without the cross!).

The movie version went in for filets and tiaras, on its own authority.
=================================

Actually, a mis-reading of this reference is what prompted my question. I thought Theoden was only wearing a jewel and not a crown. On a closer reading I think I was mistaken:
-------

In "King of the Golden Hall"

Upon it [a gilded chair] sat a man so bent with age that he seemed almost a dwarf; but his white hair was long and thick and fell in great braids from beneath a thin golden circlet set upon his brow. In the centre upon his forehead a thin golden circlet set upon his brow. In the centre upon his forehead shone a single white diamond.
----------------

The "thin golden circlet" was the crown of some sort that I missed and it had a diamond in the center. So I think you are right on the button in your assumption about the Rohan crown.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I was surprised they never used the field crown, a simple metal or leather band.

Dagor, ever seen the late Egyptian Greek pharaoh crowns. Bird motifs were often incorporated. Often a blurring of royal crown personal standard.

But I do agree the ones in the movies were silly and a bit inappropriate. Not to mention way too heavy if the were actual. Why do you think when queen Elisabeth wears hers that she moves so stiff, the blasted thing weights 42lbs.

[lorien]

Swords

Surprisingly, in the movie they went to a lot of expense and trouble to produce "real" swords. They actually had expert sword makers make the major swords out of real materials. Of course they need many swords for one sword made of various materials. They couldn't have the actors accidentally loping off heads of other actors. So in actual fighting scenes they wielded more traditional wooden things.

They had a focus on the swords in one of the extra features of the Fellowship. I think it might have been Costume Design. It might be interesting to some of you. Actually, I wondered why they went to so much expense and difficulty for only a few seconds of screen time. Even the most attentive observer is not going to notice anything in the few seconds they see a sword flash across the screen. Part of their reasoning was that the actors felt "better" about handling a truly well crafted sword. Now how authentic they were I do not know.

I found most of the expense and attention to detail they went through in the movie a bit more then what was needed -- like spending a year hand-looping the "chain" mail because they felt it "flowed" better. Did anyone notice? But then they were totally inauthentic in other things, though everything was well crafted down to the finest detail.

Now maybe the movie is authentic for the historic time period they chose for the film and it just wasn't authentic for the time period Tolkien chose for his book. I'm actually getting my education on these things from this board. Maybe you experts can date them better.

[lorien]

What surprised me this time around was that the major battle of Helm's Deep does not really take up much book space. In fact in the whole Book 3 there is very little of the book that is devoted to describing battles. There is the brief fight between the Fellowship and the Orcs at the beginning and later on a brief battle between the Rohirins and the Orcs. The rest take place "off stage" and we only hear about them from other characters. In the movie the Helms Deep battle is the major center piece, the big Warg battle, and everything attached to it, is totally made up, and we get to see the Ent battle as well. So that is a lot of battle time for the movie. The book, however, really has very little. There are actually only nine pages of the book describing the major battle of Helm's Deep.

Just for a comparison, when I listened to the audio CD of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix it took around 45 minutes to get through the reading of the description of the major Battle of the Department of Mysteries. Now I'm referring in both cases to actual battle description. So I went back and counted up the number of pages devoted to that description and it was 36 pages! This is one case where they actually shortened the battle time for the movie -- they certainly couldn't devote 45 minutes of movie time to it! I wonder if this says something about the "violent" nature of each book?

As far as The Twin Towers is concerned, there appears to be very little graphic violence in it.

[Dagor]

RE: Tiggerbear's -- "Dagor, ever seen the late Egyptian Greek pharaoh crowns. Bird motifs were often incorporated. Often a blurring of royal crown personal standard."

No, I don't think I have seen the Hellenistic examples. Is there a picture online?

RE: Tiggerbear's -- "Not to mention way too heavy if the were actual. Why do you think when queen Elisabeth wears hers that she moves so stiff, the blasted thing weights 42lbs."

LOL! Well, I guess that explains Shakespeare's (paraphrased) "uneasy rests the head that bears the crown!"

Lorien, the best references on swords are, for my money:

Richard F. Burton "The Book of the Sword," (Dover reprints, 1883 original)

Ewart Oakeshott: "The Archaeology of Weapons" (Boydell & Brewer, 1994, 1999)

Ewart Oakeshott: The Sword in the Age of Chivlary (Boydell & Brewer, 1964, 1994)

Ewart Oakeshott: Records of the Medieval Sword (Boydell & Brewer, 1991)

We got fairly deep into sword technologies in a Beowulf and Tolkien class once.

RE Lorien's -- "I found most of the expense and attention to detail they went through in the movie a bit more then what was needed -- like spending a year hand-looping the "chain" mail because they felt it "flowed" better. Did anyone notice? But then they were totally inauthentic in other things, though everything was well crafted down to the finest detail."

LOL, nope, I'm afraid my eye is not trained well enough to spot the differential flows of chain mail, hand-looped or machine quilted.

RE Lorien's -- "Now maybe the movie is authentic for the historic time period they chose for the film and it just wasn't authentic for the time period Tolkien chose for his book. I'm actually getting my education on these things from this board. Maybe you experts can date them better."

Hmmm, I'm not sure just what would be considered appropriate for an imaginary Middle-earth, IIIrd AGE situation. But if Anglo-Saxon arms and armour is our standard for the Rohirrim, at least, they were off by about two or three hundred years. The Osprey military history series has some books on Anglo-Saxon weapons and accouterment with excellent "historically correct" depictions. The movie version knights of Rohan look much more sophisticated and much higher in technology than 6th to even 11th century real life Saxons.

Check the cover art below and see if you agree:


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=Osprey+%2B+Anglo%2DSaxons

Message Edited by Dagor on 05-17-2008 09:35 PM

[TiggerBear]

Dagor wrote:
RE: Tiggerbear's -- "Dagor, ever seen the late Egyptian Greek pharaoh crowns. Bird motifs were often incorporated. Often a blurring of royal crown personal standard."

No, I don't think I have seen the Hellenistic examples. Is there a picture online?

RE: Tiggerbear's -- "Not to mention way too heavy if the were actual. Why do you think when queen Elisabeth wears hers that she moves so stiff, the blasted thing weights 42lbs."

LOL! Well, I guess that explains Shakespeare's (paraphrased) "uneasy rests the head that bears the crown!"

Lorien, the best references on swords are, for my money:

Richard F. Burton "The Book of the Sword," (Dover reprints, 1883 original)

Ewart Oakeshott: "The Archaeology of Weapons" (Boydell & Brewer, 1994, 1999)

Ewart Oakeshott: The Sword in the Age of Chivlary (Boydell & Brewer, 1964, 1994)

Ewart Oakeshott: Records of the Medieval Sword (Boydell & Brewer, 1991)

We got fairly deep into sword technologies in a Beowulf and Tolkien class once.

RE Lorien's -- "I found most of the expense and attention to detail they went through in the movie a bit more then what was needed -- like spending a year hand-looping the "chain" mail because they felt it "flowed" better. Did anyone notice? But then they were totally inauthentic in other things, though everything was well crafted down to the finest detail."

LOL, nope, I'm afraid my eye is not trained well enough to spot the differential flows of chain mail, hand-looped or machine quilted.

RE Lorien's -- "Now maybe the movie is authentic for the historic time period they chose for the film and it just wasn't authentic for the time period Tolkien chose for his book. I'm actually getting my education on these things from this board. Maybe you experts can date them better."

Hmmm, I'm not sure just what would be considered appropriate for an imaginary Middle-earth, IIIrd AGE situation. But if Anglo-Saxon arms and armour is our standard for the Rohirrim, at least, they were off by about two or three hundred years. The Osprey military history series has some books on Anglo-Saxon weapons and accouterment with excellent "historically correct" depictions. The movie version knights of Rohan look much more sophisticated and much higher in technology than 6th to even 11th century real life Saxons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dagor: most likely, but all my images come from art history books and history ones. To help you narrow your search, go from the invasion of Alexander to the fall of Cleopatra, for time period. Try Greek influences in Egyptian art. And the Cairo museum had a wonderful crowns of Egypt exhibit a few years back, that might still be viewable.

Lorien: I'd also recommend -The Armourer and his craft by Charles FFoulkes. There is a very good reason this is still in print over 70 years.

Actually, sad thing I do notice when chain mail does flow right. Watching 13Th Warrior with friends I pointed out "There that's what I mean about ring mail not looking anything like chain mail!". But overall things like that add to my enjoyment, while their lack unless blaring doesn't detract. With LOR I think a lot of that was more towards funding a dwindling industry back to life. Friends supporting friends kind of thing. Odd thing is New Line been reusing and renting out,a lot of the lesser weapons props for other movies. The real stuff does hold out.

And Dagor's right they blend WAY to many time periods in the costuming for it to be authentic. I think it had a lot to do mainly with appearances.

[lorien]

I read the Appendix on The House of Eorl and didn't think it really added much. It had genealogies that were not that useful at least to me. About the most useful information I found in this appendix was that the Rohirins originally came from the upper Anduin River Valley, probably near where the Hobbits originated from. They had saved Gondor by coming to their aid in a great battle. In gratitude Gondor granted them the lands that are now Rohan for them to rule provided they would come to Gondor's aid whenever there was need.

I think the sum total of what I just said could have been incorporated into the story easily and this appendix could have been eliminated leaving the pages for something more useful--IMHO.