Of female characters in RPG's

[Azarkon]

Humans did not have "magic" in Tolkien, yes, but he believed that heroic individuals - whether men or otherwise - could be imbued with great power from having been touched by the "light" or because of their "nobility," and perform ridiculous feats. It is entirely reasonable to have individual heroes in Tolkien's world fight armies and slay devils, because they've literally done it in his histories. This is of no surprise because Tolkien was indeed a scholar of European and Christian mythology and European and Christian mythology are full of stories like these. Ever heard of Beowulf and Saint George, slayers of dragons?

Nothing in Western mythology explains the fixation on medieval realism we find in modern fantasy. It cannot be explained by Tolkien, because he was a close follower of Western mythology. Howard isn't a much better argument, because Conan was also capable of ridiculous feats - he's the closest caricature to fantasy Hercules. Medieval realism is not a legacy of 20th century fantasy literature. In writing, it is much more associated with people like Glen Cook and George R. R. Martin, but they came significantly later than the medieval war gaming community, who were instrumental to the development of early fantasy role playing systems.

 

[Cael]

I mean, I don't think Tolkien is a great example since his characters tend to be capable of ridiculous feats, like Fingolfin (an elf) crippling Morgoth (Satan) and Ecthelion (another elf) killing multiple Balrogs (devils) by himself. Smaug was slain by a single archer, and any "noble" warrior in Tolkien's world can kill dozens of orcs. Tolkien did not abide by medieval realism to the extent that modern authors do.

You are talking respectively about an angelic figure wounding Satan, another angelic figure killing lower devils, an archer accomplishing a purely aiming feat against a weak spot he was given special knowledge of, and high level warriors slaying runts with inferior equipment (Tolkien standard orcs are rather smaller than humans, and when one of them has almost human size, like the one in Moria, you see the trouble he creates).

Magic in western culture is typically something only employed by the bad guys (am I right, ERYFKRAD ?), and that has nothing to do with wargames. What modern/contemporary fantasy and videogames have done is to extend the Gandalf archetype to humans (because magic is cool and opens up more possibilities), and make it a common occurrence. There is a reason why there is only one good wizard in Tolkien (Radagadst is much more of a Konrad Lorenz type, the Blue Istari are MIA), he is not human at all, and even he uses his magic very sparingly.

In this respect, Battle Brothers is a very old fashioned game: there is magic, but only evil guys/non-human beings have access to it. The main characters have to go through obstacles with steel and grit (and the odd suspicious beverage or mushroom).

How are elves angelic beings in Tolkien?

There was never any indication in Tolkien that great men were not capable of the same physical feats as elves.

They literally live in two worlds, both spirit and the physical at the same time, are immortal (not just age&disease but they return from their death with new recovered bodies) and their fate is tied to the Ainur and their fate, not Arda. They have keener eyesight and hearing, they are physically stronger and larger (Legolas in the movies was not good elven depiction) and other long-winded assorted things to go through here. They are vastly beyond Men.

That doesn't make them angelic beings. They were, on average, physically and spiritually stronger than men, but not to the extent of being a higher being. Tolkien literally said this in his letters. This sort of argument also doesn't stand up to scrutiny when considering "great men" like Turin, who slew Glaurung (one of the great dragon lieutenants of Morgoth), and Tuor, who slew five Balrogs in the Battle of Gondolin. Face it, Tolkien played loose with the rules.

Of course you are right, elves are not higher beings; the are at he same level as men, only gayer and with pointier ears. And Tuor was just your typical man, no special case at all: it's not like he was the embodiment of the voice of Ulmo or anything. And it's not like the 5 Balrog notches on Tuor's belt have maybe something to do with Christopher Tolkien.

You're talking about a story in which a woman who has never seen battle before, literally kills the most powerful of the Nazgul.

Why is it so hard to accept that Tolkien did not base power levels on combat physics?

There are so many examples of great feats in his works, where an individual hero or a small party takes down hundreds if not thousands of enemies, that even the movies depict it. Tolkien never let medieval combat limits get in the way of an epic story.

Eowyn was trained for battle. Just as a novice can sometimes take out a pro because he pulls a stunt that the pros do not think is possible or worthy, Eowyn waxed the idiot who froze when she revealed she isn't a male. It is Macbeth vs MacDuff all over again.

 

[Brancaleone]

Humans did not have "magic" in Tolkien, yes, but he believed that heroic individuals - whether men or otherwise - could be imbued with great power from having been touched by the "light" or because of their "nobility," and perform ridiculous feats. It is entirely reasonable to have individual heroes in Tolkien's world fight armies and slay devils, because they've literally done it in his histories. This is of no surprise because Tolkien was indeed a scholar of European and Christian mythology and European and Christian mythology are full of stories like these. Ever heard of Beowulf and Saint George, slayers of dragons?

Nothing in Western mythology explains the fixation on medieval realism we find in modern fantasy. It cannot be explained by Tolkien, because he was a close follower of Western mythology. Howard isn't a much better argument, because Conan was also capable of ridiculous feats - he's the closest caricature to fantasy Hercules. Medieval realism is not a legacy of 20th century fantasy literature. In writing, it is much more associated with people like Glen Cook and George R. R. Martin, but they came significantly later than the medieval war gaming community, who were instrumental to the development of early fantasy role playing systems.

Let me quote you, because you are making this more and more scatterbrained at each turn:

Azarkon said: "Where did this come from? The answer is historical war gaming. Gygax was a medieval war gamer first, a fantasy fan, second. He developed Dungeons and Dragons as an extension of his medieval war gaming system. The rest of the genre followed. These days with the popularity of authors like George R. R. Martin, you can't get away from "low magic" or "historical" fantasy. Only problem is, gender parity was never a feature of history, so we end up with these settings that try to both be "low magic" or "historical" and "politically correct" all at the same time. Sorry but... Doesn't work."

So, let's see if I get it right, your theory is that the reason behind nowadays' pervasiveness of "low fantasy" and "medieval realism" is that Gygax loved his wargaming, and that's why in D&D warriors don't have mystical powers like in Eastern Fantasy, because in Gettysburg (which Gygax loved) confederate soldiers obviously don't have them, so warriors in a fantasy setting can't have them either, because you know, Gygax designed D&D as an extension of his medieval war gaming system, which had no fantasy element whatsoev...oh, crap!

What can I say, man, it's a hell of a theory. I think I'm done with it.

 

[Azarkon]

I think the fixation on medieval realism in fantasy role playing is a direct result of the war gaming influence, yes. Gygax is just an example. In fact, the two communities are joined at the root, especially early on, as the same kind of people were attracted to both. Trying to figure out the correct armor value of chain mail, or the damage range of a long sword, etc. Tons of people who are interested in fantasy games, are also interested in war games, and vice versa.

Fantasy literature, by contrast, never concerned itself over much with shit like that, and its propensity to be "woke" these days makes the question of gender realism irrelevant. Of course teenage girls can do anything a man can. Are you kidding? No author would be caught arguing otherwise today. But gaming enthusiasts still do; there's a reason it's Gamer Gate and not Fantasy Gate.

 

[KateMicucci]

Keep chasing metaphorical cars (or power levels), if it makes you happy. Merry's weapon of course had nothing to do with the Witchking's fall.

If you can focus for a second, you'll realize that my point was that only the most powerful elves (plus a handful of Maiar and even stranger fellows), who have nothing to do with the humans, show anything that could be labelled like magic. And Tolkien largely shaped modern fantasy, with LotR and to a lesser extent The Hobbit, certainly not with unrevised passages from the Fall of Gondolin. And Tolkien background was Christian. And he was a Medievalist. And so on, and so on.

Another big contributor to the genesis of modern fantasy could be called Howard, and even though his setting is pre-medieval and definitely pagan-ish, it does not exactly place magic in the hands of the 'good' guys, all considered.

You could also say that the Thousands and One Nights contributed to shape the more exotic elements in those first authors who would define fantasy, and there as well, magic users are usually the bad guys.

So, to wrap it up, no, the current state of affairs has nothing to do with wargames.

Frodo used a magical sword and wore magical armor. King Arthur and Roland used magical swords. Percival used a magical spear. Western fantasy literature is strewn with piles of magical objects of every sort (used by good guys!) and it is hardly a rule that these objects are acknowledged demonic or satanic.

Maybe you could argue that good-guy career sorcerers are uncommon, but only if you ignore Merlin and Gandalf and fairy godmothers and magical talking animals and so on.

Also: what exactly do you mean by "Modern fantasy"? You say that it was shaped by Lord of the Rings, but that wasn't published until 1954. There are many medieval fantasy writers that predate it: George MacDonald, Dunsany, Howard, C.A. Smith, Vance, E.R. Erickson, Sprague de Camp, CS Lewis. If Tolkien pre-dates modern fantasy, then the good-guy magic users in the books of these other fantasy writers count.

I think the fixation on medieval realism in fantasy role playing is a direct result of the war gaming influence, yes. Gygax is just an example. In fact, the two communities are joined at the root, especially early on, as the same kind of people were attracted to both. Trying to figure out the correct armor value of chain mail, or the damage range of a long sword, etc.

Fantasy literature, by contrast, never concerned itself over much with shit like that, and its propensity to be "woke" these days makes the question of medieval realism irrelevant. Of course teenage girls can do anything a man can. Are you kidding? No author would be caught arguing otherwise today. But gaming enthusiasts still do, it's why there are games like Gothic.

Part of it might be that most 20th century fantasy writers were also science fiction and mystery writers. Including Glenn Cook and GRRMartin.

But strangley, maybe, I don't think there's much overlap between historical fiction writers and fantasy writers. Which supports your argument that these realism attitudes are coming from someplace else, like wargaming.

 

[Brancaleone]

I think the fixation on medieval realism in fantasy role playing is a direct result of the war gaming influence, yes. Gygax is just an example. In fact, the two communities are joined at the root, especially early on, as the same kind of people were attracted to both. Trying to figure out the correct armor value of chain mail, or the damage range of a long sword, etc. Tons of people who are interested in fantasy games, are also interested in war games.

Fantasy literature, by contrast, never concerned itself over much with shit like that, and its propensity to be "woke" these days makes the question of medieval realism irrelevant. Of course teenage girls can do anything a man can. Are you kidding? No author would be caught arguing otherwise today. But gaming enthusiasts still do; there's a reason it's Gamer Gate and not Fantasy Gate.

To be honest, I don't see all this fixation, on the contrary, I keep seeing the incontrollable proliferation of dumb supernatural/fantasy elements. I could only wish that we were awash in "medieval realism" and that wargames (especially historical ones) had that kind of deep, overarching influence, rather than being surrounded by high-everything stuff.
I'd say that it's, much more simply, a natural reaction to the post-Tolkien phase, with all its increasingly over-the-top and silly fantasy elements with none of Tolkien's internal consistency. I know that if I took The Sword of Shannara in my hand (and that's not even among the worst offenders), I'd feel the urge to go and write a short piece on a blacksmith in 1243 Milan who spends the entire story obsessing on the best wrought iron technique to make shipwright's nails.

Frodo used a magical sword and wore magical armor. King Arthur and Roland used magical swords. Percival used a magical spear. Western fantasy literature is strewn with piles of magical objects of every sort (used by good guys!) and it is hardly a rule that these objects are acknowledged demonic or satanic.

Maybe you could argue that good-guy career sorcerers are uncommon, but only if you ignore Merlin and Gandalf and fairy godmothers and magical talking animals and so on.

Also: what exactly do you mean by "Modern fantasy"? You say that it was shaped by Lord of the Rings, but that wasn't published until 1954. There are many medieval fantasy writers that predate it: George MacDonald, Dunsany, Howard, C.A. Smith, Vance, E.R. Erickson, Sprague de Camp, CS Lewis. If Tolkien pre-dates modern fantasy, then the good-guy magic users in the books of these other fantasy writers count.

Frodo uses an elven sword (see above about the elves), and his shirt of mail is lighter and stronger than steel, it has no magic powers (of course: it's Dwarven-made, i.e., the result of unrivalled technical prowess, not of magic).

I won't even get started about the concept of 'blessed weapon' vs magic practitioner: if you think that Merlin (a figure with deep roots in pre-Christian Wales) can be easily labeled as a 'good guy' in a Christian-medieval sense, there's not much to discuss about Arthurian legends.

Once again: maybe I said typically for a reason. Maybe.

Ehm... by speaking about fantasy shaped by Tolkien, I guess I meant ... post-Tolkien fantasy? Apologies if I wasn't clear enough.

 

[KateMicucci]

Once again: maybe I said typically for a reason. Maybe.

Yes, your point that only "bad guys" (that was your term, not mine) use magic is unsupportable and you need that weasel word to ignore all of the counterexamples.

Ehm... by speaking about fantasy shaped by Tolkien, I guess I meant ... post-Tolkien fantasy? Apologies if I wasn't clear enough.

Your word was "modern". That you conflate "modern" with "post-Tolkien" is interesting.

You don't seem very familiar with fantasy literature outside of Tolkien. There's no shame in that but I think continuing this particular conversation is fruitless.

 

[Brancaleone]

Once again: maybe I said typically for a reason. Maybe.

Yes, your point that only "bad guys" (that was your term, not mine) use magic is unsupportable and you need that weasel word to ignore all of the counterexamples.

Ehm... by speaking about fantasy shaped by Tolkien, I guess I meant ... post-Tolkien fantasy? Apologies if I wasn't clear enough.

Your word was "modern". That you conflate "modern" with "post-Tolkien" is interesting.

You don't seem very familiar with fantasy literature outside of Tolkien. There's no shame in that but I think continuing this particular conversation is fruitless.

I see, we have the freshman's favourite dialectic's trick:

"First define the meaning of what you just explained! No, wait! First, define 'meaning'! No, no, wait! First define 'define'!"

There's no shame in not knowing Tolkien either. But only one of us actually showed what he/she is unfamiliar with.

 

[EvilWolf]

I mean, I don't think Tolkien is a great example since his characters tend to be capable of ridiculous feats, like Fingolfin (an elf) crippling Morgoth (Satan) and Ecthelion (another elf) killing multiple Balrogs (devils) by himself. Smaug was slain by a single archer, and any "noble" warrior in Tolkien's world can kill dozens of orcs. Tolkien did not abide by medieval realism to the extent that modern authors do.

You are talking respectively about an angelic figure wounding Satan, another angelic figure killing lower devils, an archer accomplishing a purely aiming feat against a weak spot he was given special knowledge of, and high level warriors slaying runts with inferior equipment (Tolkien standard orcs are rather smaller than humans, and when one of them has almost human size, like the one in Moria, you see the trouble he creates).

Magic in western culture is typically something only employed by the bad guys (am I right, ERYFKRAD ?), and that has nothing to do with wargames. What modern/contemporary fantasy and videogames have done is to extend the Gandalf archetype to humans (because magic is cool and opens up more possibilities), and make it a common occurrence. There is a reason why there is only one good wizard in Tolkien (Radagadst is much more of a Konrad Lorenz type, the Blue Istari are MIA), he is not human at all, and even he uses his magic very sparingly.

In this respect, Battle Brothers is a very old fashioned game: there is magic, but only evil guys/non-human beings have access to it. The main characters have to go through obstacles with steel and grit (and the odd suspicious beverage or mushroom).

How are elves angelic beings in Tolkien?

There was never any indication in Tolkien that great men were not capable of the same physical feats as elves.

They literally live in two worlds, both spirit and the physical at the same time, are immortal (not just age&disease but they return from their death with new recovered bodies) and their fate is tied to the Ainur and their fate, not Arda. They have keener eyesight and hearing, they are physically stronger and larger (Legolas in the movies was not good elven depiction) and other long-winded assorted things to go through here. They are vastly beyond Men.

That doesn't make them angelic beings. They were, on average, physically and spiritually stronger than men, but not to the extent of being a higher being. Tolkien literally said this in his letters. This sort of argument also doesn't stand up to scrutiny when considering "great men" like Turin, who slew Glaurung (one of the great dragon lieutenants of Morgoth), and Tuor, who slew five Balrogs in the Battle of Gondolin. Face it, Tolkien played loose with the rules.

Of course you are right, elves are not higher beings; the are at he same level as men, only gayer and with pointier ears. And Tuor was just your typical man, no special case at all: it's not like he was the embodiment of the voice of Ulmo or anything. And it's not like the 5 Balrog notches on Tuor's belt have maybe something to do with Christopher Tolkien.

You're talking about a story in which a woman who has never seen battle before, literally kills the most powerful of the Nazgul.

Why is it so hard to accept that Tolkien did not base power levels on combat physics?

There are so many examples of great feats in his works, where an individual hero or a small party takes down hundreds if not thousands of enemies, that even the movies depict it. Tolkien never let medieval combat limits get in the way of an epic story.

I dont know if it's told differently in the books, but the Jackson movie made it appear that he either wasn't expecting her to attack or didnt care if she did due to the prophecy.

 

[Harthwain]

I dont know if it's told differently in the books, but the Jackson movie made it appear that he either wasn't expecting her to attack or didnt care if she did due to the prophecy.

Not sure what do you mean. Even in LotR by Peter Jackson the Witch King is clearly affected by Merry's dagger:

Spoiler

 

[BruceVC]

Historians are only propogandists and storytellers.

So how do you know if any history is true if most historians cant be trusted, where do you get your knowledge of history from?

Where do the historians?

Most historians have a degree and then focus on an aspect of history to study it further and its normally ongoing. So they sometimes update what they might have believed when new information is available. But they use multiple sources. To quote from the link below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian

"The process of historical analysis involves investigation and analysis of competing ideas, facts, and purported facts to create coherent narratives that explain "what happened" and "why or how it happened". Modern historical analysis usually draws upon other social sciences, including economics, sociology, politics, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and linguistics. While ancient writers do not normally share modern historical practices, their work remains valuable for its insights within the cultural context of the times. An important part of the contribution of many modern historians is the verification or dismissal of earlier historical accounts through reviewing newly discovered sources and recent scholarship or through parallel disciplines like archaeology"

 

[Cael]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

 

[Desiderius]

I dont know if it's told differently in the books, but the Jackson movie made it appear that he either wasn't expecting her to attack or didnt care if she did due to the prophecy.

Not sure what do you mean. Even in LotR by Peter Jackson the Witch King is clearly affected by Merry's dagger:

Spoiler

Hobbits aren't (fully) Men either. No man could kill him, which he took to be immortality, but a Hobbit and a woman* could, unexpectedly. That's what makes it a eucatastrophe, and thus so moving.

It's the (false) expectation that a woman can do anything a man can do (or vice versa) where things go off track in current_year fantasy, with the concomitant loss of the capacity to move the reader in a similar way.

Spoiler

* - Tolkien's sneaking in the abiding power of the Madonna and Child here, unbeknownst to the reader

 

[Desiderius]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

(a) They literally don't believe that truth is a thing (other than a thing constructed by and for power). Garden variety evil. This is what they're carefully taught.

(b) They defame the past of the people they mean to conquer to de-moralize them. Oldest trick in the book. Perfidious Albion's been doing it for centuries, and they were hardly the first.

 

[BruceVC]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

Yes there are definitely "historians " who are selective with history and they do this to create a certain ideological narrative that suits their current views. Like Project 1619 and CRT and then in the context of SA you get these commentators who present colonialism as only one sided and its all about theft and abuse of people and they ignore the global advancements and how things progressed during the 350 years of colonialism

But Im not talking about those historians, I am talking about the objective, normal and traditional historians who study history to understand the past and not because they want to use it to align with there current ideological and political views

 

[Great Deceiver]

Keep chasing metaphorical cars (or power levels), if it makes you happy. Merry's weapon of course had nothing to do with the Witchking's fall.

Unless I am misreading you and you were being sarcastic about this point (apologies if so, I admittedly only skimmed through the thread), this is just completely wrong. The Barrow-downs chapter wasn't just for flavour - the Barrow-blades the hobbits acquired after the episode were made by Númenóreans in Arnor, specifically to hurt the Witch King of Angmar, their greatest foe. It's written quite plainly in Book 5 of RK:

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

I believe that the craft of Westernesse was a sort of minor "magic", learned from the Elves. Tolkien warned about becoming too enamoured with craft, which is of course what led to the fall of Eregion and the rise of Sauron, not to mention Saruman's downfall.

 

[octavius]

I can't count how often something supposedly mistarioos ends up having the most banal explanation. "We don't know how they built that. Using the technology of their time it would have taken years." Oh yeah? Then they built it with the technology of their time and it took years. Problem solved, dumbass.

You right, its similar to the false narrative that says " ancient man could never have built the pyramids. Its too complicated, aliens must have helped"

But Egyptologists have proven that the ancient Egyptians did know how to create these types of structures

Not to mention that if you want to make something really big with limited technology, you end up with something shaped like a pyramid.

 

[Cael]

I can't count how often something supposedly mistarioos ends up having the most banal explanation. "We don't know how they built that. Using the technology of their time it would have taken years." Oh yeah? Then they built it with the technology of their time and it took years. Problem solved, dumbass.

You right, its similar to the false narrative that says " ancient man could never have built the pyramids. Its too complicated, aliens must have helped"

But Egyptologists have proven that the ancient Egyptians did know how to create these types of structures

Not to mention that if you want to make something really big with limited technology, you end up with something shaped like a pyramid.

Considering that we have cultures like the Mayans who also had their pyramidal structures, you'd think that something with a wider base and a smaller top would be a result of natural construction evolution. It is not as if mountains and hills didn't point the way. Oh no. It must be aliens...

 

[Reinhardt]

gnomes are just as strong as ogres, stop being a bigot, it's ~FANTASY~

in ddo i can get to ~40s even in stats i lowered to 8 at the start. so no, gnome is STRONGER than 99% ogres.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

gnomes are just as strong as ogres, stop being a bigot, it's ~FANTASY~

in ddo i can get to ~40s even in stats i lowered to 8 at the start. so no, gnome is STRONGER than 99% ogres.

3rd ed and adjacents don't count, that shit is DBZ levels of power retardedness.

 

[Brancaleone]

Keep chasing metaphorical cars (or power levels), if it makes you happy. Merry's weapon of course had nothing to do with the Witchking's fall.

Unless I am misreading you and you were being sarcastic about this point (apologies if so, I admittedly only skimmed through the thread), this is just completely wrong. The Barrow-downs chapter wasn't just for flavour - the Barrow-blades the hobbits acquired after the episode were made by Númenóreans in Arnor, specifically to hurt the Witch King of Angmar, their greatest foe. It's written quite plainly in Book 5 of RK:

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

I believe that the craft of Westernesse was a sort of minor "magic", learned from the Elves. Tolkien warned about becoming too enamoured with craft, which is of course what led to the fall of Eregion and the rise of Sauron, not to mention Saruman's downfall.

Yes, I was being sarcastic, I quoted the exact same passage not long ago in the Rings of Power thread, when there was someone insisting that the Witchking could be defeated by any weapon and that the way he met his end was just happenstance. Just couldn't be assed to go through all that again.

Tolkien's sneaking in the abiding power of the Madonna and Child here, unbeknownst to the reader

In the movie, the overtly serpentine aspect of the fellbeast, the Witchking's hissing voice, and his screeching and convulsing when he meets his end work really well in this respect (although it's probably unintentional): a proper 'crushing of the serpent'.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

One of the worst things the LotR movie trilogy did was exclude the barrow-downs chapter.

 

[Brancaleone]

One of the worst things the LotR movie trilogy did was exclude the barrow-downs chapter.

But how do you include the barrows while at the same time excluding Bombadil's assorted faggotry?

Maybe like this:

"The four hobbits, all in blackface and holding BLM signs, are in front of the barrow's entrance. As soon as the police car turns the corner, they kick the door down, grab everything they can, and rush outside screaming "Muh reparations!" "

You can tell it's fantasy because they wait for the police to go away before they start looting.

 

[Mauman]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

Yes there are definitely "historians " who are selective with history and they do this to create a certain ideological narrative that suits their current views. Like Project 1619 and CRT and then in the context of SA you get these commentators who present colonialism as only one sided and its all about theft and abuse of people and they ignore the global advancements and how things progressed during the 350 years of colonialism

But Im not talking about those historians, I am talking about the objective, normal and traditional historians who study history to understand the past and not because they want to use it to align with there current ideological and political views

All I know is that I've asked you provide ONE hard piece of recorded evidence (I'd take a letter, a note, a painting, ANYTHING) and the ONLY thing you've provided is complete subjective bullshit.

Your move sparky.

edit -

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

The salient point there is "within the cultural context of the times". Leftard cunts who populate academia are utterly incapable of that. They view everything through the lens of today and their feelz. History is nothing but another vehicle for their own self-aggrandisation, the truth be damned.

This has been true of all historians since ancient times. There's no escaping bias when only fragmentary sources of information exist. Making inferences about the past is in many ways just as difficult as trying to predict the future, and that's leaving aside the human tendency to get emotional and develop tunnel-vision.