Talk:Battle of Five Armies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't it possible that the 5 armies were the Wargs, the Orcs, the Men, the Elves and the Dwarves, instead of the Orcs and Wargs, the Men,the Elves, the Dwarves and the eagles? I haven't read any more than the Hobbit so I wouldn't know if Tolkien explained it in the Appendices. Crisco 1492 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The five armies are named in the main text of the book when the battle starts. They were goblins, wargs, men, elves, and dwarves. Why the Eagles (and bats) don't get a mention is subject to debate... possibly because they were air forces rather than land bound 'armies'. --CBDunkerson 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the decision is, it needs to be consistent throughtout the narrative, the eagles should not be labeled as a fifth army when they arrive if they are not said to be one at the top.--Xerxes855 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Syrthis, no name is ever given for the 'Lord of the Eagles' in The Hobbit. It is commonly assumed that this was Gwaihir, but not stated. Also, in Return of the King when Gandalf asks Gwaihir to carry him to find Frodo & Sam Gwaihir says that he has carried Gandalf twice before... which would be away from Orthanc and away from Zirak-zigil after Gandalf's fight with the Balrog. In The Hobbit, Gandalf was carried by the Lord of the Eagles... which would make it three times, not two, if Gwaihir and the Lord of the Eagles were the same individual. Hence, I am reverting to just use the title. --CBDunkerson 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just checked my Hobbit and though I could have sworn they said his name, you are correct it is just "lord of the eagles". Though maybe Gwaihir wasn't the eagle who carried Gandalf and the dwarves away from the orcs, just an eagle from his eyrie. :) --Syrthiss 13:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 World War Allegory 2 English Correction 3 Goblins not Orcs? 4 Game of the Same Name

[edit] World War Allegory

I have hear from a number of different (unreliable) sources that this final battle was intended as allegory for World War I. I came here hoping for more information but alas there seems to be little in the regard. Has anyone else heard anything to this point? -Milligan

As with most major works of fiction there are all sorts of 'allegory' theories in regards to Tolkien's stories. Tolkien himself frequently stated that he detested allegory and instead engaged in 'applicability'. That is, Tolkien never wrote something with the intent of it representing something else (allegory), but he did write things which were meant to be similar and evoke the same themes (applicability). Gandalf's death and resurrection were meant to be similar to Jesus and evoke the same theme of self-sacrifice, but Gandalf absolutely was not meant to be Jesus or an allegory thereof. Completely different beings - similar situation. So, no... the Battle of Five Armies was definitely not an allegory for World War I because Tolkien didn't do allegory. However, it might have been inspired by WWI or meant to be similar... though I can't think of any statements by Tolkien to that effect offhand. --CBD 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine this 'allegory theory' was influenced by the fact that Tolkien did serve in WWI. I am certain he used these experiences in developing the ideas for the book. Perhaps his attempt at allegory was accidental, perhaps intentional, perhaps non existent. This is actually incidental to my question.

My question is: has any one else heard this interpretation? At some point it seemed to me that the WWI allegory is a common interpretation, with specifically the late arrival of the eagles symbolizing the late contributions from the USA. After some searching of the internet I have found no evidence to support the notion that this is a 'common interpretation' so unless other users have information on this I will simply consider the matter closed. -Milligan

[edit] English Correction

Its Elven not elfs.

Actually the Tolkien plural is Elves, and the pre-Tolkien standard English plural is Elfs. "Elven" is an adjective. AnonMoos 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goblins not Orcs?

It's goblins, not Orcs like it says all over the article. We all are clear on the differences, right? Axion22 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please 'be bold in future! I've changed Orcs to Goblins throughout. --Davémon 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We are all clear that, in the works of Tolkien, there was no difference. The two terms are synonymous. Hence, 'Orcrist' = 'Goblin-cleaver'. --CBD 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true only if you accept the idea that there was a fixed referent and that the two signifiers "orc" | "goblin" refer to the same external or conceptual entity. As we are talking about fiction and there is no external referent (neither goblins nor orcs 'exist'), and that orcs and goblins are not portrayed in exactly the same ways in all of Tolkiens texts - from memory TH doesn't describe them as long armed, and there is no giant-headed 'Great Goblin' equilivant in LoTR or the Sil, they provide somewhat different narrative functions and display different political organisation and divergent singing abilities - then we should use the specific linguistic form given by the author in the text under scrutiny, so Goblins for The Hobbit, and Orcs in LoTR. --Davémon (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Game of the Same Name

Games Workshop makes a game of the same name to allow players to fight the battle. Shouldn't that be mentioned? --BenWoodruff (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably. There have been several adaptations of the battle as games. Most are listed at The Hobbit Adaptations. Is there any value in copy/pasting them all here? --Davémon (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)