Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Gondorian Military Forces

[edit] Reason for Creation

It seems to me that ME's most powerful military needed it own article to explain how it was formed and what tactics it used in what era. That's why this is here, and it acts as a auxiliary to my many war articles.--Theoden1 15:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

It's good, though I disagree with the title "Irregulars". Especially since it's capitalized, it might seem an "official" term to some. -- Ederchil 15:24, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, I could the term Special Forces-- I guess that would be more impressive.--Theoden1 15:31, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
And so I did. -- Theoden1  talk  contribs  edits  02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canonicity

I question how canon the facts in this article are. It seems to use Weapons and Warfare as its primary source which is problematic as that particular book has no basis in Tolkien's written material- it is simply a piece of merchandise for the films. I think it would be wrong to present any information from it, unless explicitly supported in Tolkien's own texts in articles on this encyclopedia. It would be the equivilent of writing articles based on David Day's books. Since it is also used as a source in many of your other articles Theoden1, i think the same rule applies. Dr Death 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all the references need to be to the original source. It might be worthwhile to include a section in the book's article listing all of the statements which were made up so others don't make the same mistake. It's probably not worth our time to list all of the David Day fanon. --Hyarion 18:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
More purist opinion, I see. I consider LOTR:WaW to be a highly useful secondary source, and while it may dominate the section on weapons, it won't dominate the whole article. So keep your fur on, guys. This is long way from fanon, and I'm sure author Chris Smith would be rightfully offended. A vast library and a vast amount of study would be required to come up with these few facts from primary sources-- anybody got that kind of time? -- Theoden1  talk  contribs  edits  18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's purists? I think it's just embedded in my head from all those lost points on English essays from not citing the primary source when I could have :p. While I don't have the book myself, I'm sure it is a great source, this review cites some of the issues with trying to merge canon and non-canon material. However even if everything was 100% accurate we still shouldn't be citing it, we should be citing the original source. Just like someone writing an essay on Gondorian Military Forces shouldn't be citing Tolkien Gateway, they should be citing the original sources we compiled the information from, and they can't do that if we can't provide them. That being said, a secondary source is still better than no source. Citing everything is like perfect spelling, it won't happen but it's still a good idea to try. --Hyarion 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt regard it as purism. And i wouldn't call works by other authors 'secondary sources' since the events they're supposedly reporting on are fictional- Tolkien's meta-fictional mythology about the Red Book and how it's all supposed to come from that is all well and good but in the real world he was the creator rather than a 'primary source' on events that happened independant of anything written about them. To be honest i dont know why i'm going into such depth about something that should be quite plainly obvious. Lets put it this way- how is WaW any different from fanfiction? In fact lets touch a nerve here and say Slash fanfiction. Both are extrepolations from the source material covering subjects otherwise scarcely (if at all) reported in the original work. Now within the reader's own mind they can construct whatever vision of the mythology they see fit and WaW or 'Legolas and Glorfindel get it on' are designed to stir the imagination in directions that appeal to different kinds of people, but even though war does have considerably more detail bestowed by Tolkien than sexual relations, as soon as you start to extrepolate, both as are uncanon as the next. And as an encyclopedia of Tolkien's work rather than derivative authors i think we should stick to what's written by him, and interpretations rather than inventions on his work. As a final point, you ask who has the time to look up these facts in their original sources, well i can tell you if you're doing this kind of work you have to find the time- there's no easy way out. As a bit of a pet project i actually went searching for every reference in Tolkien of the physical appearance of characters, objects and locations from the First Age and it was remarkably good fun! Dr Death 21:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Still taking a few WaW shots after all this time? -- Theoden1  talk  contribs  edits  17:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you're back! -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am. Now that Nationstates2 game has collapsed, I have much more time.-- Theoden1  talk  contribs  edits  19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I think this article (retitled to something more appropriate like "Army of Gondor", see below) can just about be salvaged with some extensive clean up. There are as I see it three main issues:

  1. Canonicity was not resolved in the above discussion. I think most would agree that Weapons and Warfare is not canon. That doesn't mean information from it shouldn't be included, of course, just that it should be separated and clearly marked as belonging to an adaptation.
  2. Anachronisms - for lack of a better word, since we're talking about fiction not history. Either way the way this article attempts to describe Gondor's army in the same terms as modern "combined armed forces" is awkward and alien to the source material.
  3. Sources, as usual.

The problem I foresee is that the amount of material from Weapons and Warfare will far outweigh any canonical information that can be dug up from the books, so sticking all of it under the heading Portrayal in adaptations might not work. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 11:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually think this this is in such a state that the page should be completely blanked and editors should start again from scratch; to be honest, this article is not useful. On those three points:
  1. Canonicity: Not only is there far too much Weapons and Warfare, but there seems to be information here which is beyond even that. The Third Age section, for example. Anything in this article which is non-canonical should be removed ipso facto - once the article is built then go for Portrayal in Adaptations to see how it stacks up in comparison.
  2. Anachronisms: You're absolutely right: why call the Rangers "Special Forces" when you can call them "Rangers"? We know that the most efficient cavalry in Middle-earth, the Rohirrim, had a pretty rudimentary organisational structure, the same is probably true of Gondor: we should not be trying to cover that fact up.
  3. Sources: What actually troubles me is canonical stuff which exists but isn't sourced or eben mentioned. For instance, I would've expected to see mentions of Thangail and Dírnaith, and I certainly would've expected to see descriptions of the uniforms (as on Twelve Houses of the Gondolindrim, cf House of the Mole).
I definitely agree with you that this article needs a better name; and I agree about the problem. What might be better is a "Military History of Gondor", and then the - relatively small - information we have on the Gondorian troops can form a small section amongst the chronology (the Navy section could be saved for this purpose). The problem, though, is that that could overlap too much with the History of Gondor itself... --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes you are probably right. The canonical information could perhaps simply be moved to a "Military" section in Gondor. It would be nice to find a place for Theoden's write-up of Weapons and Warfare though, either by renaming this article to reflect its non-canonicity or incorporating it into the article for the book. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 11:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)