Your theories on how the 🧌trolls got Glamdring and Orkrist?

[Radaghast]

Of course... another alternative is to say the swords simply have no power at all.
Unless they are being wielded by someone, whatever they have simply lays there and does nothing.
(Even if it glows. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?)

In which case again, the swords still all bear the same level of "intrinsic" power - none.

Yet they still have a power that has not been considered... which has become intrinsic to them all.
It is here (among other areas) that we need to consider and measure their power.

Thwack... into your courts.

I think you may be overthinking things just a tad. Also, mere mention and frequency of Sting's "feats" don't preclude similar feats by other elf-made blades.

 

[Olorgando]

This could actually mean Orcrist DID have the greatest power intrinsically... if we extend "foes" to include things beyond "Orcs."

I noticed that use of "foes" instead of "Orcs", too.
One speculation takes me in the direction: after the Battle of Five Armies, who were no longer foes of the Dwarves of Erebor? Thranduil's Elves; I'd guess the Men of Laketown never had been (except in the short siege of Thorin's Dwarves before the BoFA). Dale had gotten on well with Erebor before Smaug appeared. Kind of leaves the Orcs. But JRRT never goes into detail of who exactly attacked Dale and Erebor (or Thranduil) during the final clashes ending the War of the Ring. Easterlings could conceivably have marched up from the south-east.

But as to taking all too many of the details in TH as Middle-earth canon, even though it is author-published, I have strong reservations against it (a point where Elthir and I part ways to a degree).

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Tolkien used the name Gondolin before he had any hopes that his other stories would be published or that The Hobbit would become part of that universe; almost as a larf. I have never seen the first edition of The Hobbit but maybe that word isn't even in that edition?

Douglas A. Anderson is meticulous in documenting changes, e.g. noting the change in Roast Mutton from 1937's "if we can read them" (the runes) to "when we can read them" (1966), and as he doesn't mention Gondolin being added later, we can assume it was present from the first.

An odder thing is, of course, Gandalf being unable to read the runes, something that apparently exercised Tolkien, as he attempted to explain it at least a couple of times: once, that they were specialized "Gondolinian" runes, and in his abandoned try at a revision, in the 60s, that G couldn't read the runes at the time because "the blades were covered with blood". 😳

BTW, in relation to "powers", I'll venture a speculation that they were very likely inscribed with spells, in addition to their names.

Easterlings could conceivably have marched up from the south-east.

They did; see the paragraphs following March 25, 4019 in Appendix B. In fact, it appears from the description that the attacking force consisted only of Easterlings.

I'd also say they likely came directly from the east.

At any rate, I suppose there was advance warning from Orcrist.

 

[Ent]

I think you may be overthinking things just a tad. Also, mere mention and frequency of Sting's "feats" don't preclude similar feats by other elf-made blades.

My dear Radaghast, the entire string has derailed from its original intent.
All the flurry is over a quibble about a simple comment I made in my response... that "sting was by far the most powerful."
I was asked why I think so. I am supplying my answer.
And I'm merely responding by sharing that other people are overlooking the issues of 'power'.

Lastly, "other elvish blades" are not in view here, but only the 3 mentioned in the original statement resulting in the quibble. Orcrist, Glamdring and Sting.

In truth, the swords themselves have absolutely no power... other than to glow. And as is pointed out with Orcrist at least, it's ability to glow was used by some on an ongoing basis - and from the language, for some extended period of time, such as "never"... as long as that place needed to know about the approach of enemies. But that's neither here nor there.

And no "feats" were ever done by any of the blades, if we want to really get techincal with the language. They were done by the wielders.

I'm more than happy to settle for the details provided, admit that they are all entirely equal in intrinsic power, and it is their USE that has determined their individual merits beyond that.

I'm thankful the Orcs remembered their names back in history.
I wonder how many people remember their names today.

I daresay if we asked a hundred thousand people the names of Thorin and Gandalf's swords, the correct responses would be somewhat thin, compared to the same question asked of Frodo's sword.

And there are other issues of 'power' that have not yet been considered. All these were in my mind as I wrote... but I don't think have been brought to bear by anyone yet at all... other than tangentially, by one poster who shall remain nameless.

I think I've learned once again NOT to post.
It inevitably leads to a zeroing in on some quibble-point that derails the issue of the original thread.

Not why I'm here...though again the responses that were related to actually bring additional text to bear were of use.

So my recommendation is to return this to the original poster's thrust and let it go.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I think I've learned once again NOT to post.

There is no good reason not to post!

Unless you're posting fluff.* Which you don't.


* Or 🥚

 

[Ent]

There is no good reason not to post!

Unless you're posting fluff.* Which you don't.


* Or 🥚

Eggs seem to have plenty of presence already, and most surely don't need any assistance from me. 😆
I do try to avoid fluff. I've left all groups and pages I was in, due to the predominance of fluff, save this one.

So let's just say I will be MUCH more cautious with regard to what I say and regarding what it is said about. I will try to remember that anything resulting in a 'disjointed, separated presentation of thoughts and related information' such as this inevitably leads to discontinuity and confusion. And, not all think about things in the same ways. (Bert and Ernie come to mind...)

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

If you haven't already noticed, we're fairly tolerant of off-topic posts here. 😄

(Not that yours were)

 

[Ent]

If you haven't already noticed, we're fairly tolerant of off-topic posts here. 😄

I have indeed noticed that, and to me that's fine.
I just often feel badly for the poor thread originator, who had a specific question, need or intent in mind with the thread, but found himself/herself needing to pick their way through the Dead Marshes.

And yet...I could suppose that most thread posters too, find value in the many tributaries - even quibbles - that may erupt from time to time. And most are younger than I, and so have a more agile brain to jump from vehicle to vehicle, and discern which vehicles to ignore, in the chase toward the ultimate destination. (somehow a picture of Indiana Jones leaping about just flashed through my mind.)

 

[Elthir]

* Or 🥚

Ouch.

An odder thing is, of course, Gandalf being unable to read the runes, something that apparently exercised Tolkien, as he attempted to explain it at least a couple of times: once, that they were specialized "Gondolinian" runes, and in his abandoned try at a revision, in the 60s, that G couldn't read the runes at the time because "the blades were covered with blood".

Wasn't the Runes of Gondolin explanation a fan theory (albeit based on something Tolkienian)?

The dried blood is Tolkien in any case, but he didn't get it into the Third Edition!

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

No, as I understand it, the bloody blades appeared in that major rewrite, given up on by Tolkien as a lost cause.

I dunno about the other theory.

Ouch

Hey, I'm just as guilty. 😅

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

I have indeed noticed that, and to me that's fine.
I just often feel badly for the poor thread originator, who had a specific question, need or intent in mind with the thread, but found himself/herself needing to pick their way through the Dead Marshes.

And yet...I could suppose that most thread posters too, find value in the many tributaries - even quibbles - that may erupt from time to time. And most are younger than I, and so have a more agile brain to jump from vehicle to vehicle, and discern which vehicles to ignore, in the chase toward the ultimate destination. (somehow a picture of Indiana Jones leaping about just flashed through my mind.)

I appreciate your careful thought into posts very much-- but I have treasured every one of them! Particularly the poetry.

 

[Elthir]

No, as I understand it, the bloody blades appeared in that major rewrite, given up on by Tolkien as a lost cause.

Right S-eS! And for myself, I think (speculation alert) Tolkien might have wanted to retain the dried blood idea . . .

. . . this is partly based on the handling of a timeline problem: John Rateliff notes that the 1960 Hobbit revisions would have redressed a certain timeline dilemma -- but "the fact that the 1966 third edition failed to do so, is, I think, a persuasive bit of evidence that Carpenter is correct in stating that Tolkien did not have the 1960 [Hobbit] material before him when he made those final changes to the text."

And J. Rateliff further notes that Tolkien was almost certainly working from memory, and only ended up exacerbating the problem of the discrepancy in the Third Edition. Okay that's that problem . . .

. . . but I wonder if Tolkien had this material at hand at other times with respect to revising the Third Edition, and that if he didn't, he might have simply forgot to add the dried blood.

Seems a quick enough revision, to my mind, anyway.

Another interesting one is Gandalf's eyebrows sticking out beyond the brim of his hat -- revised in the 1960 Hobbit to "bushy eyebrows that bristled beneath the brim of his hat" -- but with this one, Tolkien seems to have forgotten that he had also published this detail in The Lord of The Rings!

Anyway, I ramble here.

I dunno about the other theory.

The Gondolinic runes appear to date from the first half of the 1920s. They exist in the external chronology of course, but I don't recall (it being mentioned) that Tolkien himself necessarily thought that these runes explained Gandalf's unreading.

In The Hobbit, from an external perspective, Gandalf was arguably not yet "fully Gandalf", so to speak.

Not that you didn't know any of this my good egg . . . but it gave me something to do while the pizza heats up.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Where is this mentioned, about the blades being covered in blood?

 

[Elthir]

Where is this mentioned, about the blades being covered in blood?

Dried blood in the 1960 Hobbit . . . Tolkien didn't finish this revision.

See The History of The Hobbit by J. Rateliff

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Dried blood in the 1960 Hobbit . . . Tolkien didn't finish this revision.

See The History of The Hobbit by J. Rateliff

I see. Thank you for this. I will. Is there a citation I can find?

 

[Ent]

I appreciate your careful thought into posts very much-- but I have treasured every one of them! Particularly the poetry.

Thank you for the comments.

The poetry will of course continue. Especially the poetry 'tossed off' on the spur of the moment, and not necessarily too directly Tolkien related - though usually 'Forum' related in some way.

With regard to this particular thread, the tributary launched from my response, and the whole concept of the number of angles to consider with regard to "power" and how that plays into the situation at large, and my response in particular, that will not be added now, however. It will only serve to further distract from the thread's initial purpose.

I'm very thankful for all the text and comments shared that helped illuminate things with regard to the swords...especially the added clarity on Orcrist.
The rest may be covered in another thread sometime somewhere, when 'power' is again under discussion and we can move beyond the common and immediate thinking with regard to it, to the other aspects of and means through which power is developed, extended, received, applied, executed, and perceived, at a minimum.

I did say I would develop and share it 'later, after work'... and I still may do so 'later'.... but now is not the time.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

I await your remarks gladly, Enting. You always give good words.

 

[Eljorahir]

Your theories on how the trolls got Glamdring and Orkrist?​

I have no theory for Orkrist.

For Glamdring, however:
After the rubble of Gondolin cooled, three trolls arrived to scrounge for plunder. Their names were William Huggins, Tom, and Bert. They collected many nice trinkets. Then, in the distance they saw the tiniest orc they'd ever seen dragging a sword along the ground that was too big for it to lift. They snuck up behind it very quietly and just stood there. As it backed up dragging the sword it bumped into William's foot, was startled, turned around, looked up, and exclaimed: "'Ere, 'oo are you?" William grabbed the cute little orc and put it in his pocket for safe keeping.

Over the next centuries the three trolls travelled into the east and made good use of the sword for various troll tasks. You know, things like rotisserie skewer, toothpick, troll toenail trimmer, etc. (...trollie stuff.)

Then, this burrahobbit showed up out of nowhere and tried to steal the tiny orc from William's pocket...

I guess everyone knows the story from here.

Of course, it's just a theory.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Hmm... It is a very interesting theory. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Copia]

To me there is no doubt that Glamdring and Orkrist were more "famouse" and powerfull than Sting. Sting was a dagger after all.

It may be that Glamdring and Orkrist were taken during the Fall of Gondolin? So it has only been passed down by random orcs and trolls maybe and somehow ended up with the trolls. Then again its kinda weird that orcs would have anything to do with them. Since even orcs/goblins of the Mist Mountains feared them so much.