• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

Originally posted by Greenwood
Yes, Aragil and I produce facts. You present only your interpretations and claim they are facts.
Click to expand...

Read it how you will.


I disagree. Saruman's Uruk-hai are dead. The Uruk-hai here refers to great soldier-orcs of Mordor, specifically those who wrought havoc in the Tower. Even Sam notes that wearing the Morgul gear after what happened in the Tower 'wouldn't do'.

You claim that some of Gorbag's troops escaped Cirith Ungol, but you present no facts to prove this, just interpretations.
Click to expand...

I presented what Snaga said. His statement implies that some got out. Even if none did Orcs were sent out looking for them in case some did. Thes are the 'rebel Uruk-hai'.

You claim Shagrat sent messages before leaving the fortress, but you present no facts, just your speculations.
Click to expand...

I presented what was said in the text. If you don't like it thats your choice.


Then you are welcome to dismiss it because it does not agree with your interpreation. It seems obvious to me that Uruk-hai is referring back to the 'great soldier-orcs of Mordor and Isengard'. You interpret it differently. That's your choice. Others can make up their own minds, as to which interpretation is more reasonable.

Our arguments are based on facts and yes, some interpretations based on those facts. Your arguments are based on your interpretations which you then try to treat as facts.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want. I stand by my position
 
Re: An apology

The 'quote' function does not seem to be working properly, I have endeavored to keep what I am repying to in context.


Apology accepted.
I have provided any number of quotes and citations. I do not care to continuously retype them out (I do not type and do those things takes a long time).


The 'rebel Uruk-hai' (and App F.) seem to be the crux of the debate.
I have not seen any (what I would consider) reasonable explanation for the 'rebel Uruk-hai' being something other than Mordor Orcs. I don't consider it reasonable or even possible that it was believed that pack of Saruman's snuck into Mordor.

I think Saruman's Uruk-hai were a different breed than Sauron's. Both were still 'great soldier-orcs'. Even some of Saurons 'great soldier-orcs' seem to have been of different 'breeds' from each other. But they were all 'Uruk-hai', great soldier-orcs. Different 'breeds' within a 'race'

About my 'usual habit', that is how I am used to responding. I personally don't see any point to responding to things I agree with (at least not any more than to say I agree). I think if you look at those quotes that I do respond to, if they are tied in together I respond similarly to them (for example in my above post regarding the effect of sunlight on Sauron's Orcs, you supplied some quotes from the 'Uruk-hai', 'Ride of the Rohirrim' and 'Pelennor Fields' chapters implying that Sauron's Orcs were directly effected by the sun. In these circumstance however, it seems to me that it is more likely that they were effected by forces of the good guys charging down on them), or try to address them together.


Re the parenthesis. Yes, in that context.
Frodo is a 'sort of dwarf-man'. He is a Hobbit. Hobbits are Men. Hobbits are smaller than both Men and Dwarves (and dont have beards). Hence a 'sort of small dwarf-man' seems an entirely apt description of them. It might have been more accurate if the Orc's were told to look for a 'Hobbit', but the Orcs do not know what a 'Hobbit' is.
I don't consider it reasonable that Gorbag's Orcs were mistaken for 'rebel Uruk-hai' (I will presume that the context you are using this in means Isengarders). There have been great pains taken to point out that Saruman's Uruks looked different than Sauron's. Even Sam notes that it would be dangerous to be seen in Morgul gear after what happened in the Tower.


I have not said they could not endure the sunlight. IIRC the point I was making in those posts was that Treebeard was speculating on their origins. This was as I recall in reference to them being 'half-orcs'. I have said early on in this thread that it is likely that Saruman used Men in breeding his Uruk-hai. What I dont agree with is that the Uruk-hai are actually the 'half-orcs'. The 'half-orcs' are seperately described by Merry and Aragorn ('goblin faced men', the 'Southerner' and, at least, some of the 'ruffians').


If CT 'borrowed' that from Foster, and did not credit him, then yes I would say that is plagiarism. (He refers the reader to Foster to find references elswhere (e.g. in LotR and Sil.) if needed so he does not have to supply constant reference to them himself; he does not say that he borrowed from Foster). There has been no reasonable suggestion of why he would 'borrow' that from Foster. I do not consider suggestions that he did not want to disagree with Foster to be reasonable. He did not spend a couple of decades of his life preparing and publishing his father's manuscripts to make sure they were in accord with what is in RF's guide.
No, I would not consider it to be plagiarism, to not give individual and specific credit to his father for each entry. He explains the index adequately. He states that he used for it part of his fathers original index for LotR. If he did not base that on his fathers index, why would he make it up. If he did simply make it up why does he not note it, if not in the index, then elsewhere? If he was going to make up things, why did he not make up an entry specifically defining '-hai' in the index (or Oghor-hai)? Because his father did not provide such a definition? He says that he 'has added notes on the meaning of hitherto untranslated names'. Where did these 'notes' come from? I don't think he made them up.
The most reasonable explanation is that he drew that entry from his father's index. It is not contradicted by the corpus.
If this is not a reasonable explanation to you, I would like to see a more reasonable explanation.
 
Approaching a conclusion?

We seem to nearly agree on contention 1. You note that the narrative identifies the Uruk-hai as Orcs. I agree, and further note that Treebeard identifies the sun-tolerant troops of Saruman as Orcs. Furthermore the narrative later identifies Pippin in the clutches of the Uruk-hai, but always refers to the slave driving orcs and the orcs from Barad-dur (the column slamming into F&S's column) as Uruks.


The quotes from Silmarillion, UT, and Hobbit were not intended to address the soldier Orcs of Mordor. They are intended to back up Treebeard's statement that older creatures could not abide the sun. This increases our awareness of his comment that the orcs (as he calls them) of Saruman (not Saruman and Sauron) could endure the sun. The Soldier Orcs of Mordor are addressed below.
I would say that the Orcs that survive Lorien seemed to all be lesser Orcs except for Grishnakh. Still, this begs the question, why didn't the Uruks in Moria immediately pursue, when the Uruk-hai of Isengard moved no matter what the sun was doing? The Uruks of Moria were sent to intercept the Fellowship, and they indeed pursued them after nightfall right into the Golden Wood. Wouldn't it have been in their interest to follow in the daylight, if they were capable of it?
Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 2
The 'Moria runts' were not Uruks. They were the lesser Orcs.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But the Uruks in Moria could not drive the Moria runts into the sun, nor did they find it necessary to come out themselves until it was dark. The Uruk-hai of Isengard do both of these things.
The timeline runs thus: Isengarders put on speed, Tolkien describes sun going down, Mordor Orcs put on speed. Earlier (sun up) we note that the Isengarders move faster than the Mordor orcs b/c they are hardier and stronger, and they move faster than the Moria orcs because of the sun. Is it impossible to believe that the Isengarders are stronger and hardier because they're more tolerant of the sun? What is Tolkien doing throwing out all of these sun references if not to convince us of this fact? Why do the Uruk-hai say they aren't worried about the dawn at Helm's Deep, and why does Treebeard seem so perplexed about the sun-tolerance of Saruman's orcs? Maybe Tolkien thought if he put enough of these references in his books it would be a more subtle way of getting the point across than a direct statement. Too subtle, apparently.
Of course they were running because of both the morning (unexpected disintegration of Sauron's clouds) and the arrival of the Rohirrim, which is probably why Tolkien chooses to describe Sauron's clouds disintegrating. The interesting thing is that the men are later described as rallying, but the orcs are never mentioned fighting again, just being routed and hating the sunlight. The Orcs are driven into the river on p. 150, the Haradrim are earlier rallying on p. 148. Men were able to rally, before the orcs are driven into the river. The Orcs were not, they were too preoccupied with the sun.
The Orcs were not fighting all morning in the sunlight, they were being driven to the river in a rout, unless you can produce a quote from the text saying that they were fighting (I've already produced two saying they were routing all day).
Saying that the Orcs hate sunlight while they are being routed is the subtle way of saying that the sun is affecting their fighting ability.


On Contention 3 we largely seem to agree, in any case most of the points here are covered in other contentions. However, I notice that Strider does say that the gear of the Isengarders is different from the gear of other Orcs in his experience. In his youth he fought in Southern Gondor within 80 years of the Uruk attacks on Ithilien, surely he has encountered Mordor Soldiers before? Perhaps his remarks have to do with the fact that the Isengarders bear weapons normally only men could bear, and men are larger than orcs. How did the Isengarders get so large- see contention #5.


Grishnakh is described as short in relation to Ugluk. However, the other Orcs around him are described as being even smaller. Shagrat is described as large in relation to Snaga (the only other Orc around). They could be exactly the same height, which reminds me why it is useful to pay attention to the context of the quote. Why can't there be different breeds of great soldier-orcs? I believe that is what Greenwood and I are contending. We think that the different breeds even have different names- Uruk instead of Uruk-hai.
Originally posted by Tar-Elenion to contention 4
'Swarthy'= dark skinned. Like the 'black Uruks of Mordor'. Like the 'huge orc-cheiftain, almost man-high, clad in black mail, his broad flat face swart'.
Click to expand...
The Uruk-hai were described in a similar way to the Chieftan from Moria because they were originally conceived to be the orcs from the Moria, see HoME V. 7, p. 347, note 18. Black skin is not requisite for being a Uruk, the tracker of RotK is described as 'black-skinned, with wide and snuffling nostrils.' Is he also a 'great soldier-Orc'?


What Gamling does not refer to is plain 'orcs'. Yet the context of his statement indicates that 'half-orcs', 'goblin-men', and 'hill-men' is inclusive of all of Saruman's forces. Tolkien in Morgoth's Ring refers to 'orc-men' and 'men-orcs' as different entities. I would say that 'goblin-men', 'men with goblin faces', 'southerner at Bree', and 'ruffians in the Shire' fall into the category of 'orc-men', who apparently are sallow-faced and slant-eyed. Where do we see the 'men-orcs'? Why, they would be the 'half-orcs' of Gamling, or the 'Uruk-hai', as they call themselves. They are large (and cunning), with swarthy skin and squint eyes. Pretty neat- The Uruk-hai and the goblin-men lie on a continuum from the 'Black Uruks of Mordor' to the (presumably) white-skinned Dunlanders! Skin color in this case must be an indicator of the amount of Orc blood. However, if you really do admit that the Uruk-hai of Isengard might have some mannish blood, then our differences of opinion on this contention seem merely cosmetic.



I guess it's now worth noting that you agree that the Soldier Orcs of Mordor might be a different breed from the Soldier Orcs of Isengard, and further that the breed from Isengard might be enhanced with 'mannish' blood. I guess your main problem is whether or not these different breeds have different names. Shouldn't your biggest problem be with contention 1? Yet you agree that the Isengarders call themselves Uruk-hai, while Gorbag calls himself a Uruk. Why are we still debating (or are we)?
 
You know, there are a lot of interesting threads in this Forum. This one is unresolveable. Ain't no body gonna move and everyone is wasting everyone else's time. But if WM got the space..... keep on!!
 
Last edited:
Re: Approaching a conclusion?



Perhaps they were disconcerted at the death of the Balrog and took time to organize. Maybe there were to few Moria Uruks left to force the lesser Orcs to go out into the sun, and too few to seriously attempt pursuing the Fellowship near Lorien by themselves.
However, were _Uruks_ of Moria actually sent out to pursue the Fellowship? The 'Northerners' say they 'came to kill and avenge their folk'. There are no mentions of 'Uruks' with them. Grishnakh comes from across the 'Great River', not from Moria.




The passage reads thus:
[Isengarders jeer at the Northerners that the Whiteskins are coming and will kill them. Grishnakh, sighting the horsemen, cries out. They were swftly riding down the Orcs]
"The Isengarders began to run with a redoubled pace that astonished Pippin. a terrific spurt it seemed for the end of a race. Then he saw the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed. The forest was dark and close. [Orcs start to enter the forest]... but the Orcs did not halt. Both Ugluk and Grishnakh shouted, spurring them on to a last effort."
I dont read any appreciable time difference here. The Isengarders pick up the pace and only then does Pippin note the sun is setting. The Mordor Orcs also put on speed.
I dont read it that: 'The Isengarders put on speed. Time elapses. Pippin sees that the sun is setting. Mordor orcs put on speed'.
That this is all happening virtually simultaneously, is how I read it.
If Tolkien wants to say that the Mordor Orcs are greatly effected by the sun, why does he not say so? Why does he only directly note the effect on the lesser Orcs?



After the initial rout by the Rohirrim, and the death of the Witch-king, it is stated that men from the City drove against the legions of Morgul that were gathered in strength at the south walls, these had not been routed until they were attacked (though the sun was shining). Then the Enemy's reserves are sent in. Now the tide is turning again. Then the Corsairs are seen. A great press of Eomers 'first foes' are between him and Harlond, while 'new foes' cut Eomer off from Imrahil. It is realized that the 'Corsairs' are actually allies. Imrahil then charges into those that cut him off and they include Orcs along with Variags and the troll-men.


Yes, and you previously noted about the short broad bladed swords. I pointed out that Sam armed Frodo with a short broad bladed sword that he got from the Orcs at Cirith Ungol. What we have no instance of is Mordor Orcs using longbows. But they tend to be shorter in stature than the Isengarders.




Sam notes a large dead orc on the threshold.
The huge Orc in Moria that spears Frodo is noted as 'almost Man-high'.
Do you think the Uruk-hai of Isengard are this tall as well?

I am contending that the 'great soldier-orcs' are in the Black Speech collectively referred to as Uruk-hai (and singularly as Uruk). There are different breeds among the Uruk-hai.



In your original statement...
(aragil wrote
"If the Uruk-hai were really the same as the Uruks, here would be the optimal place to describe them similarly. Yet he does not: thrice he refers to the 'long arms' of the Uruks, twice he refers to the swarthiness and slant-eyes of the Isengarders."

...you seemed to imply that you thought the one of the differences of the Isengarders was their 'swarthiness'. I pointed out non-Isengarders that were 'swarthy' as well.
Note 18 does not say they were from Moria. It says they were from the Misty Mountains, and bear Merry and Pippen to Isengard, but see also pages 378-9, both lesser Orcs and greater were present.
A better reference to the Uruks in Moria is pg 205, n.5.



I would posit that the Men-orcs (large and cunning) refer to the goblin faced men, while the Orc-men (treacherous and vile) refer to those used as spies like the Southerner (who was less Orc-like), and these are the 'half-orcs'. Both may have been present in the Shire. Pippen cals some of those in the Shire half-orcs, while Aragorn calls the goblin faced men 'half-orcs'.

Do you think the Uruk-hai are of 'man-height'?

I have already noted that the Isengarders might have 'man-blood' much earlir in the thread.



I guess it's now worth noting that you agree <snip>
Click to expand...

I have noted these very early in this thread, or they have been addressed elsewhere in this post.
If you wish to continue please do so.
 

The question of Gorbag's orcs escaping and Shagrat's alledged messages is somewhat of a side issue on this thread, but since you like to look at evidence from sources outside LOTR, let us see what the HoME has to say on these issues. On p. 24 of the hardcover printing of Sauron defeated we find the following outline of Tolkien's quoted by CT: "Sam kills the orc and the other runs off yelling for Shagrat. ...... Sam follows. He overhears the orc reporting to Shagrat. Shagrat iks lying wounded by dead body of Gorbag. All Gorbag's men have been killed, but they have killed all Shagrat's but these two." On the same page, after an editorial note by CT we have: "Shagrat has in vain tried to get messages away to Baraddur. The Quarrel arose about the treasures. ....." Thus we see that when he was planning the chapter Tolkien meant for all Gorbag's orcs to be killed and he meant for no messages from Shagrat to have gotten out. Now as I have always said, these are secondary materials and Tolkien was free to change his mind in the final version, but there is no evidence except for your suppositions that Tolkien did chnage his mind. The final version contains nothing that contradicts the basic outline above (except that Sam doesn't kill an orc). In your argument you do your usual tactic of pointing to an ambiguous passage in the text, in this case Sam seeing a light and wondering if it is a signal, you state that this "lends credence to the fact that it may be a signal" and then you proceed on from there as if your contention is a proven fact, when it is merely your supposition with no hard evidence to prove it. As for the window itself, I have shown that the window Sam saw the light in faces the wrong way. Your only response is that maybe there were others facing the right way. First you have no evidence for these other alledged windows and second, if they did exist why is the supposed signal being flashed from the wrong window. Sam may have just seen the light of a torch being carried past the window. If you can posit the existence of windows that are not mentioned in the text, I can suggest torches being carried past windows. As for invoking the difficulty of getting a signal between Minas Tirith and Rohan, we are told in the text how this is done: relays of messenger riders and signal towers on heights. There is no evidence for either of these existing in Mordor.

As for the time period you invoke as allowing lots of time for Shagrat to send a message, one of the things that is quite clear when reading the first two chapters of Sauron Defeated ('The Story of Frodo and Sam in Mordor' and 'The Tower of Kirith Ungol') is how much Tolkien wrestled with his timeline for Frodo and Sam at Cirith Ungol and in Mordor. Tolkien kept adding and shifting events between days to get things to match up with events in other parts of the story in Rohan and Gondor. In the end he seems to have done the best he could and relegated the timeline to the appendix where it is not obvious that parts of it just do not fit the narrative. The timeline given in Appendix B for the events around Cirith Ungol is as follows: March 12 - Gollum leads Frodo into Shelob's lair, March 13 - Frodo captured by the orcs of Cirith Ungol, March 14 - Sam finds Frodo in the tower, March 15 - Frodo and Sam escape and begin their journey north along the Morgai. Even if you have Gollum leading Frodo and Sam into Shelob's lair a little before midnight on March 12 and Frodo and Sam escaping early on March 15 it seems impossible to stretch the described events at Cirith Ungol into the more than 48 hours you need to fit this timeline. Tolkien finessed it by having Sam knock himself senseless for an undetermined amount of time at the lower gate into the Tower, but you would have to have Sam unconscious down there for well over 24 hours to fit the above timeline. I wonder how many readers ever thought that Sam was knocked out for something like a day and a half down there in the tunnels?
 
Why won't anyone admit that Shagrat himself could have delivered a message to a subordinate to pass on to some Superior or Nazgul? He could have run into another Ungol Orc (surely all of the Orcs of Cirith Ungol were not killed) and simply told him to report to the Nazgul of Gorbag's rebellion. It would be called rebellion since he tried to pinch the coat against orders that nothing was to be taken. Shagrat wouldn't have hung around, he wanted to get the "spoils" to Mordor himself and get his just reward.

I'm not sure that happened, but for Greenwood and Aragil continuing to deny the possibility is beyond me. I still adhere to my opinion of the Uruk-hai as Uruks of Insengard exclusively, but feel you two are being blinded by your devotion to your convictions. It is time to admit that it could have happened and stand by your original opinions; but, allow that Tar-Elenion and Cian may be right.... just not in your opinion.

Closed-mindedness never leads to productive dialogue or conclusions.
 
Why won't anyone admit that Shagrat himself could have delivered a message to a subordinate to pass on to some Superior or Nazgul?
Click to expand...

Grond

If by the above you mean that Shagrat may have made a second-hand report to the "higher-ups" after he left Cirith Ungol with the mithril coat, I have no problem with that. (I cannot speak for Aragil.)

surely all of the Orcs of Cirith Ungol were not killed
Click to expand...

It is clearly stated in the chapter 'The Tower of Cirith Ungol' by Snaga that all of Shagrat's orcs were killed.
 
In the outlines contained in Sauron Defeated (pgs 8-10) we can note several instance of JRRT 'changing his mind'.
Outline III notes that Shagrat persuades Gorbag not to send messages at once, then several lines later Frodo is rescued and Shagrat sends a message to Baradur.(JRRT seems to have not made up his mind at this point which name should go with which Orc). He also posits that the message may be sent by signal. A Nazgul arrives and takes Frodo's gear.
Outline IV is similar, no message is sent for some time, Shagrat and Gorbag fight, Gorbag (Master of the Tower) wins and sends two men to Barad-dur. Later in that outline it is again said a message is sent.
Outline V notes that Gorbag send a swift runner to Barad-dur and a Nazgul is sent to Ungol in return, and finds the 'Tower full of dead and the prisoner flown'.
In a description of the Tower (draft A, pg. 20) we note that windows stated over the plains of Lithlad and Gorgoroth with black blank eyes. We also read that some of the windows formed a line of red lit holes.
What you quoted above is found on an isolated slip of paper that CT notes is very likely a continuation of the next outline (Draft B), and Shagrat put things together to send to Lugburz.
After that CT notes that his father began the Chapter again with 'D' on the basis of A and B but differening only slightly from RotK (draft C was 'barely comprehensible' but D 'closely followed' it in 'fair copy').

Various timelines are also noted in SD.

Please refer to SD for full context, I am only (all to) briefly outlining the passages. There is other commentary to be had from the book.

In any event interpret it how you want.
 
Last edited:
Grond- I'm happy to explore any possibility, I just think that possibilities with support from the book should be considered 'closer to what Tolkien intended' than possibilities which are not supported by the book.
Having recently purchased the History of the Lord of the Rings, I'm still learning exactly how Tolkien laid out his story, and how he was continually updating it. Having said that, I think that the information which the tracker and soldier discuss was probably a result of one of the earlier drafts. By all indications, none of Shagrat's party made it out of the tower between the time Frodo was discovered, and the time the fighting broke out. The only Orc of any sorts implicated to leave the tower after the fighting broke out was Shagrat. If Shagrat delivered the report while running to Barad-dur, I tend to think he would have given a better description of Sam (who he had encountered and thwarted in combat) than a 'great Elf', and he could have given a better description of Frodo than a 'dwarf-man'. Grishnakh and Ugluk both seemed to be familiar enough with 'Halflings', and Gorbag, Shagrat, the soldier, and the tracker all seemed to be familiar with Gollum. I also think that had Shagrat reported along the way he wouldn't have given a damn about whatever leaderless pack of Gorbag's boys might have escaped. They posed no further threat to Mordor, while spies which had found their way into Mordor would have posed an enormous threat, and would have been hunted in far greater numbers than we have evidence for in the text. I believe that if Shagrat had been the origin of the rumors, then they would have had much more accurate descriptions. If the Nazgul had gotten wind of anything resembling 'dwarf-man', I'm sure they would have figured it to be a Hobbit, especially if they heard 'beardless dwarf-man'. I feel relatively sure that a Nazgul hearing of a Hobbit would have reported immediately to the 'Biggest Boss', and again we would have had a horde of Orcs, Trolls, Nazgul, Men, Variags, what have you descending immediately upon our poor Hobbits.
This brings about the salient point of the argument- the two Orcs have no idea what they are looking for! The entire passage is about how dis-satisfied the two Orcs are with the descriptions given by the Higher-Ups!! The tracker ends up becoming so sick of the orders that he kills the soldier. If the Higher Ups were getting reliable information on what was going on then 'every Orc ever spawned' would have been pursuing Frodo and Sam right up to the cracks of doom. Fortunately, the Higher Ups were apparently getting confusing reports, and for that reason the orders that they sent out were confusing to the tracker and Soldier which Sam overheard. I will allow that perhaps Shagrat might have got off some sort of message prior to the fight. What I won't allow is that Shagrat absolutely, positively ID'd Gorbag's band, while not caring to give a good description of the two spies which he saw quite clearly with his own eyes. Gorbag's band was not planning to invade and conquer Mordor, Shagrat knew this so I don't think he'd characterize them as 'rebel Uruk-hai'. He certainly wouldn't have given the 'disciplining' of whatever Orcs of Gorbag's which might have escaped the same sense of urgency as catching the two spies which he knew were now running around Mordor!
The fact of the matter is that the report of a 'great Elf', and a 'dwarf-man' was unreliable. Therefore, 'rebel Uruk-hai' does not need to accurately describe Gorbag's Orcs. I have seen no more evidence that Gorbag commanded Uruk-hai than I have seen to suggest that Sam is in fact a 'great Elf' in disguise. I have repeatedly allowed Tar-Elenion latitude in personal interpretation. I just don't think that a lot of his interpretation is supported by the texts.

For the argument that 'rebel Uruk-hai' unambiguously refers to Gorbag's troops you need the following four items from the text:
1)Examples of Uruk-hai which are soldiers of Mordor (satisfied if Gorbag's troops are proved to be Uruk-hai)
2)A reliable report to the Higher Ups saying that Gorbag's troops are rebelling against Mordor
3)The reliable report reaching the Higher Ups in time for the response to include the soldier and tracker

If #1 was correct then this thread would not exist. There is no evidence that Sauron employed Uruk-hai, or that Gorbag's boys were Uruk-hai. Gorbag says that he is a Uruk, but never claims to be a Uruk-hai. The only Orcs which ever claim to be Uruk-hai are Saruman's. The only Orcs the narrator ever describes as Uruk-hai are Saruman's troops. The narrator always refers to soldier Orcs of Mordor as Uruks. You can not assume that #1 is true to prove this passage refers to Uruk-hai of Mordor, then say that this passage proves that there were Uruk-hai of Mordor. That would be circular (infuriatingly so). First you need to show that there were Uruk-hai soldiers in Mordor, then this passage can refer to them. Until then this passage refers to the only Uruk-hai which Tolkien ever describes: the Uruk-hai of Isengard. The report of Shagrat would definitely satisfy #2, but runs afoul of #3 because Shagrat does not reach Barad-dur until March 17th, the day after Sam overhears the Soldier and Tracker (subsequent to which I agree with Tar-Elenion, Shagrat was probably executed for all his troubles in spite of the fact that he did everything he could in sevice of the Dark Lord). It is undeniable that a report occurs before the Tracker and Soldier were sent out, so the question becomes 'How reliable was this report?' The fact that Sam is referred to as a 'great Elf' is compelling evidence that the report recieved by the Higher Ups is decidedly unreliable. But, since I can't even convince Tar-Elenion that Frodo is in fact a Hobbit, and not a dwarf-Man, I doubt I will ever convince him that the information is unreliable. Perhaps I can convince him that the 'great Elf' sent the 'rebel Uruk-hai' into Mordor, as I have as much evidence for Uruk-hai in the service of a great Elf as he has evidence for Uruk-hai in the service of Mordor.
 
Gorbag on Frodo:
"Lugburz wants it, eh? What is it, d'you think? Elvish it looked to me but undersized. What's the danger in a thing like that?"
Shagrat responds:
"Don't know till we've had a look."
"Oho! So they haven't told you what to expect?..."

Other descriptions:
"Got him? Got who? This little fellow?"
"Nar - this little filth, he'll wake up, in a few hours..."


Shagrat on Gollum:
"You must have seen him: little thin fellow; like a spider himself, or perhaps more like a starved frog."
 
I'm not really arguing with you logic Aragil. I'm just saying it isn't definitive. I always thought the great Elf in bright armor referred to Frodo (superb mithril coat) and that Sam would have been deemed the small dwarf-man (seems to fit my mental image of Sam). I am sure that Shagrat despoiled Frodo and would have known just what he looked like. Frodo was fair in face and could easily have been taken for a small Elf. Great Elf could have referred to his bearing and not his stature. And he saw Sam for only a second. Sam had his Elven-cloak on and was bearing Sting. I would imagine he looked pretty fierce but was beardless.... hence, the description of dwarf-man. I also have a problem with anyone considering rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard actually seeking to invade Mordor. As a great war is beginning to be engaged, there are rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard presumably roaming about trying to get into Mordor. Whassup up with that? That is the most unbelievable argument of all and one that beats me on the head as I still try to keep my initial feeling towards the Uruk-hai as being exclusively Isengarders. JRRT just wouldn't have thrown that in. It is too far fetched to believe.

You speak of arguments being circular. It is maddenly circular that the Great-orcs of Saruman refer to themselves as the "Uruk-hai of Isengard". Why not just say as before, "we are the mighty Uruk-hai."

This whole dissertation has me more confused than when I began. There is no definitive answer and argue as we will, no answer is in sight. I still think -hai means greater. That is my opinion. I also believes it applies to Saruman's greater-orcs only but am not positive. I do not think it means man... but that's just me. I've combed the books with all of you and think everyone has a valid opinion. Now..... I hope I'm done but who knows? I hope to live happily in my blissful ignorance.
 
Last edited:
I also have a problem with anyone considering rebel Uruk-hai of Isengard actually seeking to invade Mordor.
Click to expand...

Grond

You are falling into the pitfall of thinking that there has to actually be a real possibility of Saruman's troops in Mordor for the tracker's statement to refer to. As Aragil has pointed out all the possibles listed by the tracker orc are outlandish and wrong. There is no great elf warrior or dwarf-man. If we are restrictling these things to actual possibilities how can they be talking about a great elf in bright armour? Shagrat has carried off the mithril armour. Was this mithril coat the elf's spare armour? And by size alone it is obvious it wasn't worn by any "great" elf. As for dwarf-man, have we ever heard of any dwarf-men in Middle Earth? If there really were a "pack of rebel Uruk-hai" (or Uruks) would one tracker and a single soldier orc be able to take care of them when these "rebels" had already wiped out Shagrat's entire command at Cirith Ungol? If the "rebel Uruk-hai" are any of Gorbag's boys why doesn't Tolkien have the tracker call them "rebel Uruks"? Tolkien has already had Gorbag call himself and his boys Uruks. Why should Tolkien change the designation to Uruk-hai if he meant us to think that it referred to Gorbag's boys? Tolkien is showing by the tracker's report that the "higher-ups" are totally confused and haven't a clue what is going on. None of the possibilities make any real sense and we (the readers) know it.
 
Sorry couldn't resist

from previous post.

If the "rebel Uruk-hai" are any of Gorbag's boys why doesn't Tolkien have the tracker call them "rebel Uruks"? Tolkien has already had Gorbag call himself and his boys Uruks. Why should Tolkien change the designation to Uruk-hai if he meant us to think that it referred to Gorbag's boys?

Why? because Tolkien means for the terms to be interchangeable!
 
Why? because Tolkien means for the terms to be interchangeable!
Click to expand...

JeffF

You have a quote from Tolkien to prove this contention? It would have saved us all lots of time if you had produced this Tolkien quote earlier.
 
No, JeffF has an opinion based upon the evidence he has seen presented in this thread as we all have and we have all come up with our own conclusions. It is already admitted by all that there is no such quote, just ****opinion of Grond**** many ambiguious uses of the term which do not provide "definitive clarity" on the issue.
 

The point that Aragil and I have been making is that there are not "many ambiguious uses of the term". In fact there are many perfectly clear uses. In all other instances in LOTR it is obvious that the term Uruks is used for Mordor orcs and Uruk-hai for Saruman's orcs. When looked at in conjunction with all these other times the words are used, the tracker orc's comments are not ambiguous.
 
Hobbits are not Dwarves. Hobbits are short, Dwarves are short. Hobbits like tobacco, Dwarves like tobacco. Hobbits are among the 'good peoples' of ME, so are Dwarves (for the most part). These are the only similarities I can think of between the two. But I've never said that Hobbits could not be described as 'a sort of small dwarf-man'. I don't doubt that the soldier was referring to a Hobbit when he used that phrase. It's just not accurate as per Tolkien's Middle-Earth, because Hobbits have nothing to do with Dwarves, as far as I know. It would be interesting if the soldier Orc knew something about the origin of Hobbits that I (as a reader) don't. I'd have to say, if he knew so much why didn't he just say a 'Hobbit'.
I think that Sam could have been described as a 'great Elf'. But I think that this is even less accurate than referring to a Hobbit as a 'dwarf-man'. The fact is, given the discussion between Gorbag and Shagrat at the end of The Two Towers, most readers will recognize that 'great Elf' and 'dwarf-man' refer to Hobbits, but not accurately. The reader reads this, smiles to themself and thinks 'those bad guys don't really know what's going on.'
I also think that Gorbag's Orcs could be described as 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I just don't think that this description needs to be accurate. I think that there is less similarity between Hobbits and Orcs in general then there is between the 'great Soldier Orcs' of Mordor and Isengard'. Yet a fellow Orc mistakes Frodo and Sam for Orcs. How much easier then to mistake the soldier Orcs of Mordor for those of Isengard, especially when Isengard has recently become hostile. As far as I know battalions of Mordor Orcs don't generally attack other battalions of Mordor Orcs in Mordor, especially not when they're all at open war with the Tarks. I'm not saying that given enough time a Mordor Orc could not tell Gorbag's lot from Ugluk's, I'm saying that the Higher Up's orders were not based on 'reliable intelligence'. The Higher Ups report was inaccurate with 'dwarf-man' and 'great Elf', and it appears to me that it was likewise inaccurate with 'rebel Uruk-hai'. I think that a reliable description would have been 'a Halfling, a second Halfling, and whatever Horseboys of Yashgoi as escaped Cirith Ungol alive'. That description would have made me scared for Frodo and Sam. 'Dwarf-man', 'great Elf', and 'rebel Uruk-hai' each make me relieved, because I realize that the Higher Ups are confused, and that Frodo and Sam still have a chance to make it to Mount Doom.

Hope I've satisfied your curiousity, Tar-Elenion
 
Aragil, from the descriptions in the text, I have always imagined Frodo as being extremely fair. He is closer to Elvish, I think than all the other Hobbits. Sam, on the other hand, has always been described as short and squat and more, well..... dwarvish. That is why I always thought that the small dwarf-man referred to him.....even before our debate here started. But that is just my internal visualization of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

📖👀 Chapter 3 (📔Book III) The Uruk-Hai
Replies
4
Views
2K
Rivendell_librarian
B
🧌Orcs and Daylight
Replies
2
Views
7K
Sihtric
Why did good in LOTR eventually win? Did evil stand a chance?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Klaatu
F
Seeking Help: 3D Models for Uruk-Hai Armor Project
Replies
0
Views
1K
Frequ
F
Tolkien's Difficult Ethics
Replies
8
Views
2K
Backyard Professor
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…