413 replies to this topic

[Axerules]

“ What, if anything, in the Hyborian religion of Mitra has to do with ancient polytheism? A few classical ''touches'' maybe, but this correlation you speak of doesn't come from REH's work. You seem to have never considered this religion at all.”

Lets just say that I am sure REH had the cult of Mithras in mind when he instigated Mitra within the Hyborian nations.

Non, no, não, nein. Another misconception.
What REH probably had in mind was Jack London's Star Rover.

Robert E. Howard has stated over and over again in his correspondence that Jack London was one of his favorite authors, one of "the most powerful men in all of the world’s literature." He wrote that the Star Rover was "a book that I've read and re-read for years, and that generally goes to my head like wine." Anyone who has read Howard's reincarnation stories and London's novel can see the obvious filiation, including staples such as the long treks of the 'Aryans' (paralleled by the Hyborians in THA) conquering weaker peoples/races. Here are some links to pertinent articles about London's influence on Cross Plains' bard: http://www.thecimmer...lyptic-imagery/
http://www.thecimmer...and-the-jacket/
http://www.thecimmer...the-star-rover/
http://www.thecimmer...re-star-roving/

The James Allison yarns are almost London pastiches. In chap XXI of the Star Rover, here's how London talked of Mitra: "Mitra likewise was a good old Aryan god, ere he was filched from us or we discarded him." Please note the spelling of the god's name, the same as Howard's, WITHOUT the H. So affirming that Howard had "Mithra" ( with an H) -a god who was worshipped by Roman legionnaires - in mind when he describded his Hyborian Age Mitra as the main deity of his beloved early Hyborians/Aryans is definitely nonsensical.

[theagenes]

“ What, if anything, in the Hyborian religion of Mitra has to do with ancient polytheism? A few classical ''touches'' maybe, but this correlation you speak of doesn't come from REH's work. You seem to have never considered this religion at all.”

Lets just say that I am sure REH had the cult of Mithras in mind when he instigated Mitra within the Hyborian nations.

Non, no, não, nein. Another misconception.
What REH probably had in mind was Jack London's Star Rover.

Robert E. Howard has stated over and over again in his correspondence that Jack London was one of his favorite authors, one of "the most powerful men in all of the world’s literature." He wrote that the Star Rover was "a book that I've read and re-read for years, and that generally goes to my head like wine." Anyone who has read Howard's reincarnation stories and London's novel can see the obvious filiation, including staples such as the long treks of the 'Aryans' (paralleled by the Hyborians in THA) conquering weaker people/races. Here are some links to pertinent articles about London's influence on Cross Plains' bard: http://www.thecimmer...lyptic-imagery/
http://www.thecimmer...and-the-jacket/
http://www.thecimmer...the-star-rover/
http://www.thecimmer...re-star-roving/

The James Allison yarns are almost London pastiches. In chap XXI of the Star Rover, here's how London talked of Mitra: "Mitra likewise was a good old Aryan god, ere he was filched from us or we discarded him." Please note the spelling of the god's name, the same as Howard's, WITHOUT the H. So affirming that Howard had "Mithra" ( with an H) -a god who was worshipped by Roman legionnaires - in mind when he describded his Hyborian Age Mitra as the main deity of his beloved early Hyborians/Aryans is definitely nonsensical.

Nice Miguel. I had forgotten about that.

[Ironhand]

Quote by Ironhand
“Yes, that's going on in part of the Hyborian Age. Elsewhere we have Egypt, (Turko-) Persia, Bedouins, Cossacks, India, and the Middle Ages. All at the same time.”

Exactly, I wanted to drop the ancient near east in a little more ( always loved old Egypt ), but did not want to muddy the water more than it already has been.

Actually the waters need to be "muddied" exactly as I described. That's what it takes to describe the Hyborian Age. It's one way to escape the oversimplification that results in the either/or argument that's been going on.

And now, to escape my headache, I'm going to look at feelthy pictures elsewhere in this forum.

Edited by Ironhand, 12 February 2012 - 07:28 AM.

[deuce]

Reposted from the "Bront" thread:

Instead of trying to posthumously mind-read Robert E. Howard's views on the Middle Ages, perhaps we should just hear them straight from the man himself. Let's look at what he had to say in a letter to HPL (July 13, 1932)...

"Some day I must try to study the ancient Grecian world. It's always seemed so vague and unreal to me, in contrast to the roaring, brawling, drunken, bawdy chaos of the Middle Ages in which my instincts have always been fixed. When I go beyond the Middle Ages, my instincts veer to Assyria and Babylon, where again I seem to visualize a bloody, drunken brawling, lecherous medley. My vague instincts towards classical Greece go no further than a dim impression of calm, serene white marble statues in a slumbering grove. Though I know the people of the classic times must have wenched and brawled and guzzled like any other people, but I can not conceive of them. The first mythology I ever read was that of Greece, but even then it seemed apart and impersonal..."

That was written MONTHS after REH had already created Conan and the Hyborian Age. Yet, Robert E. Howard still had to "try to study the ancient Grecian world". How much influence could the "Classical world" have had on Howard if he still needed to "try to study" it? However, he had a VERY firm vision of the Middle Ages as being a "roaring, brawling, drunken, bawdy chaos". Sounds a LOT like the Hyborian kingdoms to me. REH felt an "instinctive connection" to the Middle Ages and nothing but apathy for Greek/Hellenistic times.

On the other hand, Robert E. Howard actively despised/hated/loathed the Roman Empire. So, when Aquilonia gets equated with the Roman Empire, whoever does so is basically saying that Conan saved/perpetuated a pseudo-Roman Empire not once, but MANY times. A clear violation of REH's most deeply-held values. Here's the thread dedicated to quotes about Robert E. Howard's hatred for the Roman Empire:

http://www.conan.com...ns&fromsearch=1

Hope that helps.


Let's look at another REH quote (ca. February 1931):


"I feel more of an instinctive interest and loyalty toward individuals rather than nations, races or countries; as for instance, and especially, King Saul, King Arthur (whether historical or legendary), Joan of Arc, Robert Bruce, Brian Boru and Hugh O'Neill."

One ancient Middle Easterner and a bunch of "Medieval" (by Howardian standards) Western Europeans. Notice "King Arthur" on that list? Where's Marius? Xenophon? ANY "Greco-Roman"?

That is Robert E. Howard's list of his favorite historical figures. EIGHTY PLUS PERCENT of those listed are "medieval". NONE are "Greco-Roman/Classical".

[deuce]

Quote by Ironhand
“Yes, that's going on in part of the Hyborian Age. Elsewhere we have Egypt, (Turko-) Persia, Bedouins, Cossacks, India, and the Middle Ages. All at the same time.”

Exactly, I wanted to drop the ancient near east in a little more ( always loved old Egypt ), but did not want to muddy the water more than it already has been.

Actually the waters need to be "muddied" exactly as I described. That's what it takes to describe the Hyborian Age. It's one way to escape the oversimplification that results in the either/or argument that's been going on.

Hey Ironhand! I hope when you're referring to "oversimplification" and "either/or" arguments that you didn't have MY comments in mind. If so, THAT's quite a bit of "oversimplifying" and "either/or"ing on your part.

As I've stated for years (ever since I read the quote in the preceding post above in The Letters of Robert E. Howard), the Hyborian Age world (the portion on REH's maps, anyway) can be grouped into TWO BROAD CATEGORIES analogous with REH's stated historical interests/favorites: When "two at the same time" is an option, you CAN'T have an "either/or" situation. Period.

First, the "Howardian Ancient Middle East": That begins with the foundation of Sumer (which REH seems to have placed around 6500-6000BC) and ends with the fall of Babylon/foundation of the Persian Empire (and includes pre-satrapic Egypt).

That's a nice broad swath of Middle Eastern history, encompassing about 4000yrs (according to REH, which is ALL that counts in this context). Hard to "oversimplify" FOUR MILLENIA, right?

We can see Robert E. Howard's interest in this period exhibited indubitably and concretely in yarns like:

The Voice of El-Lil

The House of Arabu

Two Against Tyre

The Children of Asshur

The Noseless Horror

Black Eons (which should be more rightly known as "The Unassprechlichen Fragment", IMO)

The Footfalls Within (a masterful melding of "Howardian Middle Ages" and "Howardian Ancient Middle East"; the "Classical" era is basically ignored in the backstory)

The Fire of Asshurbanipal

In contrast, tales by Robert E. Howard that specifically reference the "Classical" period can be counted on one hand, basically.

The other broad time period (and the one that takes up 75+% of REH's HA maps) is the "Howardian Middle Ages". This would appear to extend from the Gothic sack of Rome (411AD) to sometime in the 1600s. That's 1200yrs, but still longer than the "Howardian Classical Period". Once barbarians were generally in charge in Europe, things got "medieval". Howard never refers to the Battle of Chalons or the Vandal sack of Rome as occurring in the "Roman" or "Classical" period.

According to Patrice Louinet, Robert E. Howard wrote that he considered the Solomon Kane yarns "medieval" and we know that The Black Stranger was converted into a 17th century pirate yarn by REH. It would appear that Howard considered the dominance of firearms, along with other factors, as the cut-off point.

The number of REH tales that would fall within this category could fill several volumes. THOUSANDS of pages. There is nothing to indicate that REH set stories within this broad timespan "for the money". Talbot Mundy made PLENTY of money writing about Cleopatra and Caesar for Adventure magazine (a pulp that REH was never able to crack, though he DEARLY wanted to). I don't have the inclination to list all the REH yarns that fall into the "Howardian Middle Ages" category. It would take too long, frankly. However, check out this link:


http://howardworks.c....htm#historical

Now, scroll down from that and include the "Agnes de Chastillon", "Cormac Fitzgeoffrey", "Cormac Mac Art", "Solomon Kane", "Terence Vulmea" and "Turlogh Dubh O'Brien" tales. Like I said, THOUSANDS of pages.

Many consider Cormac Fitzgeoffrey (Second Crusade) as a closer prototype for Conan the Cimmerian than Kull. Red Sonya from Shadow of the Vulture (1529AD) was turned into Red Sonja™ and few seem to question her inclusion into the Hyborian Age. Where is the "Greco-Roman" Red Sonya? Basically, she couldn't exist. Terence Vulmea, 17th century Gaelic pirate, started out as Conan.

And now, to escape my headache,

I keep seeing these references to "headaches" when contemplating the Hyborian Age. I never found thinking about such things a "chore" of any kind, However, I hope that the breakdown into two large sections helps all those "Hyborian Age Headache" sufferers.

The main thing is that Robert E. Howard thought in a "bigger box" (no little categories like "Early High Dark Ages" for REH!) than most. He also tossed away the prevailing favorable prejudice of HIS era (and, it would seem, of our era) for the Greco-Roman period. He saw the "Middle Ages" (411-1640?AD) as a brawling, partying, all-around bad-a$$ period, just as he portrayed the Hyborian Age..

[Ironhand]

The Greco-Roman vs. Medieval debate sort of forces an either/or mentality. It seems to me that REH included almost everything BUT classical Greco-Roman in the Hyborian Age. Bront admitted for a moment that the Hyborian Age included all sorts of historical periods, then seemed to forget it the next moment, in the mean time becoming obsessed with the classical idea.

For some reason I am reminded of some SSOC stories from the 80's that showed Turanians and Zingarans all dressed as Dark Age peasants.

Edited by Ironhand, 13 February 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[deuce]

The Greco-Roman vs. Medieval debate sort of forces an either/or mentality. It seems to me that REH included almost everything BUT classical Greco-Roman in the Hyborian Age. Bront admitted for a moment that the Hyborian Age included all sorts of historical periods, then seemed to forget it the next moment, in the mean time becoming obsessed with the classical idea.

Ah, that clarifies things. There IS an "either/or" situation in regard to Robert E. Howard's overwhelming preference for (his definition of) the "Medieval" period over the "Classical (Greco-Roman)" period. Howard simply left no doubt about that. So, when you get posters (like the megalomaniacal Bront) who DO prefer the Classical over the Medieval, then "either/or" becomes an issue.

Robert E. Howard loved the "Medieval" period (as he defined it) AND he loved the "Ancient Middle East". BOTH are included within the Hyborian Age (understandably). Sadly, for delusional narcissists like Bront, there isn't much room for Greco-Roman stuff (which REH hated or couldn't care less about).

In the 8000yrs of human history (as he reckoned it), Robert E. Howard made room for 6500yrs-worth in his Hyborian Age. For some, that's just not enough. Seems like plenty for me.

For some reason I am reminded of some SSOC stories from the 80's that showed Turanians and Zingarans all dressed as Dark Age peasants.

Hell yeah. Totally know what you're talking about. AT THE SAME TIME, all "Hyborian" soldiers were armed and armored like 1st century legionnaires. I posted some links to Angus McBride's paintings here somewhere. An easy and accurate resource for Conan/Hyborian Age artists.

[deuce]

Reposted as a public service to whom it may concern,...

Have you read any of Robert E. Howard's Crusades/Medieval tales? If not, here are some threads to check out:

http://www.conan.com...an&fromsearch=1

http://www.conan.com...nd&fromsearch=1

http://www.conan.com...re&fromsearch=1

http://www.conan.com...er&fromsearch=1

Burn your pastiches and read some of REH's best (and most "Conanic") stories.

[constantine]

Only some elements are non-medieval in the Hyborian kingdoms. I thought again about this ''mercenaries of Corinthia'' thing. They seem to have made an impression on Conan in BC. But even if there was a conscious inspiration from the rise of mercenaries in ancient Greece, it would probably be a case of similarities in historical conditions (which have been used often by REH) rather than an actual reflection of a Classical society in Hyborian Corinthia.

The mention of city-states in the letter to Miller about the tale RitH may show another possible classical influence, if it can be placed in a Corinthian state. Still, medieval Italy was also divided in a similar manner and had her share of condottieri mercenaries. And I can never recall any overly powerful priest in ancient Greece (or Rome for that matter) exerting the authority Nabonidus does in the unnamed state of this yarn.

Yet I wonder what Howard would think had he read Xenophon's chronicle about the march of the Ten Thousands or Alexander's Anabasis...

Edited by constantine, 13 February 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[Ironhand]

For some reason I am reminded of some SSOC stories from the 80's that showed Turanians and Zingarans all dressed as Dark Age peasants.

I think my subconscious was trying to remind me of the artistic poverty of such an idea. Depriving Zingara and Turan of the rich cultural contrasts described by Howard.

[deuce]

For some reason I am reminded of some SSOC stories from the 80's that showed Turanians and Zingarans all dressed as Dark Age peasants.

I think my subconscious was trying to remind me of the artistic poverty of such an idea. Depriving Zingara and Turan of the rich cultural contrasts described by Howard.

Exactly. In the comics, it tends to be the same generic cultural "look" wherever you go. In The Book of Thoth, Kelley Jones portrayed STYGIA as being Greco-Roman and a lot of the "Stygians" didn't even have black hair.

[Kortoso]

Sometimes I wonder what the fuss is about.

Obviously, the Hyborian Age is portrayed as an era long before the "ancient" classical periods and the medieval period.
Howard, in his prose, chose words that would create an image quickly and easily for most readers, so he used a lot of terms from the middle ages and renaissance.

On the other hand, comic artists use visual cues to portray ancient civilizations. On the surface, the clothing and armor in these appear to be "Roman" or something, and similar to Howard's literary choices, they are there as simple cues as to the general nature of the Hyborian Age.

Generally it seems that the concern is how the art seems to differ from the text, but in reality, they are trying to accomplish the same thing with different mediums.

[Ironhand]

Sometimes I wonder what the fuss is about.

Obviously, the Hyborian Age is portrayed as an era long before the "ancient" classical periods and the medieval period.
Howard, in his prose, chose words that would create an image quickly and easily for most readers, so he used a lot of terms from the middle ages and renaissance.

On the other hand, comic artists use visual cues to portray ancient civilizations. On the surface, the clothing and armor in these appear to be "Roman" or something, and similar to Howard's literary choices, they are there as simple cues as to the general nature of the Hyborian Age.

Generally it seems that the concern is how the art seems to differ from the text, but in reality, they are trying to accomplish the same thing with different mediums.

I disagree. Howard may have used the medieval tropes to make it easy for readers to visualize appropriate images in their minds' eyes. But artists actually delineate the images. Therefore they should, IMHO, stay true to Howard.

Just my opinion.

[amster]

If I may add my two cents into this discussion, it really depends on which story you're talking about. Some have a more ancient vibe to them, while others feel more Medieval. I think Bront made some valid points before he got himself banned. I think the theme (if not the aesthetics) of the Hyborian Age (a highly advanced Western Culture with Celtic and Germanic barbarians beyond their frontiers) is more akin to Classical Greece and Rome than Medieval Europe. Europe really didn't have a barbarian problem after the Viking invasions.

One more thing. I read BarB's post on Howard and the Romans, and have read seveal of the letters to Lovecraft where he expressed hatred for the Roman Empire. Is it not possible that people are taking these quotes a little too literally, and that REH was using a bit of hyperbole when talking to Lovecraft? REH was a dramatic storyteller, even in his letters. Why would he viscerally hate a civilzation that existed 2000 years ago? If Mussoli weren't in power, and he had the means, does anyone think REH wouldn't have jumped at the chance to visit Rome and tour the ruins, and that he wouldn't have loved every minute of it? REH "hated" the Romans because he idneified with the barbarians, and every narrative needs a hero and a villian. He hated them in the same way that a soap opera fan hated JR Ewing. He loved to hate them. Just my two cents.

Edited by amster, 15 February 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[deuce]

I think the theme (if not the aesthetics) of the Hyborian Age (a highly advanced Western Culture with Celtic and Germanic barbarians beyond their frontiers) is more akin to Classical Greece and Rome than Medieval Europe. Europe really didn't have a barbarian problem after the Viking invasions.

During Conan's era (and long after) there doesn't seem to have been much of a "Celtic and Germanic barbarian" problem. Prospero thought the Nordheimr to have been nearly mythical and he was a well-traveled, smart guy. There certainly doesn't seem to be evidence for large raids (if any), let alone migrations by the Nords. About the same for the Cimmerians. They raided and then went back home to their hills. When it came time for them (and the Picts and the Hyrks) to bring the Hyborian Age crashing down (which they HAD TO DO to wipe the historical slate), Robert E. Howard moved them on the chessboard.

Medieval Europe suffered seemingly endless waves of barbarian attacks ("barbarian" depending on definition as always). There were ALWAYS "barbs in the wire". The English considered that to be the case in their home island(s) until well into the 18th century.

The Byzantines (the bulwark of the Christian West) fought off everything from Huns, Bulgars, Slavs, Arabs, Rus/Vikings, Pechenegs,Seljuks and Ottomans into the 15th century.

Throughout the western Med and clear up to the southern coast of England, Barbary pirates (brutal slavers and raiders) took their toll for a pretty solid 1000yrs. In fact, THAT particular "barbarian problem" wasn't solved until US Marines did so in the NINETEENTH CENTURY.

In the British Isles, the native English and then the Normans had PLENTY of problems with the "barbaric Welsh" (contemporary usage, not mine). The English were still referring to Cymru as "Wild Wales" until about 1800AD.
Once the Aquilonian Empire (OK, Angevin Empire) partially subjugated Wales, it expanded westward into Ireland (using the "Bossonians"; sorry, I meant "Welsh") in a "wildcat" operation not unlike the Aquilonian occupation of Pictish lands. At the time, the Normans and Bossonians (I meant to type "Welsh") BOTH referred to the various Irish tribes as "barbarians". The English and Welsh often refer to the Irish as such to this day.

To the north of the Angevin/Plantagenet dominions were the Scots. The "Lowland" Scots (Bruce and Wallace were both counted as such) were, yes, referred to as "barbarians" by the Normans. The Gaelic Highlanders were considered as utter savages. Those bloodthirsty hillmen weren't put in their place, irrevocably, until the 1740s.

It's not like the end of the "Viking invasions" (when would you end those, BTW?) signalled the end of Scandinavian depredations/excursions. There was another attempted Norwegian invasion of Ireland around 1100AD.

The Teutonic Knights/"Prussians" were quite busy defending against or suppressing barbarian Mongols, Balts and Slavs. Their Russian (and Cossack/Ukrainian) neighbors had their hands full with barbaric Mongols, Tatars, Circassians and Turks.

The Eastern Europeans had to deal with incessant raids/invasions by the Ottomans (MUCH better models for the Turanians than the Huns or "Persians", BTW), of course. Just because the Turks loved to impale prisoners doesn't mean they were "barbarians", though.

That's a 360 degree circle of barbarity around "Medieval Europe" (as Robert E. Howard defined "medieval").;

One more thing. I read BarB's post on Howard and the Romans, and have read seveal of the letters to Lovecraft where he expressed hatred for the Roman Empire. Is it not possible that people are taking these quotes a little too literally, and that REH was using a bit of hyperbole when talking to Lovecraft? REH was a dramatic storyteller, even in his letters. Why would he viscerally hate a civilzation that existed 2000 years ago? If Mussoli weren't in power, and he had the means, does anyone think REH wouldn't have jumped at the chance to visit Rome and tour the ruins, and that he wouldn't have loved every minute of it? REH "hated" the Romans because he idneified with the barbarians, and every narrative needs a hero and a villian. He hated them in the same way that a soap opera fan hated JR Ewing. He loved to hate them. Just my two cents.

This seems more a topic for the "Romans" thread, but we can discuss it here if you really want.

[amster]

Whoa! I'm really sorry for stepping inside of your turf, Deuce. I didn't realize that someone had to have doctorates in both history and Howard studies to be qualified to form an opinion on this subject, though I should have by now. Obviously you're right about every single point, and I think it's clear that REH wasn't composing the Conan yarns primarily for the enjoyment of his readers. I appreciate the history lesson. I really do. Conan is HARD!

It's not like the end of the "Viking invasions" (when would you end those, BTW?)

I have no idea when the "Viking Invasions" ended. I think it would be easier if you just told me.

This seems more a topic for the "Romans" thread, but we can discuss it here if you really want.

No, that's really okay. I think I'm just going to stick with the lightweight topics like movies and comic books if it's all the same to you. This stuff is obviously too hard for me.

[amster]

I think the theme (if not the aesthetics) of the Hyborian Age (a highly advanced Western Culture with Celtic and Germanic barbarians beyond their frontiers) is more akin to Classical Greece and Rome than Medieval Europe. Europe really didn't have a barbarian problem after the Viking invasions.

During Conan's era (and long after) there doesn't seem to have been much of a "Celtic and Germanic barbarian" problem. Prospero thought the Nordheimr to have been nearly mythical and he was a well-traveled, smart guy. There certainly doesn't seem to be evidence for large raids (if any), let alone migrations by the Nords. About the same for the Cimmerians. They raided and then went back home to their hills. When it came time for them (and the Picts and the Hyrks) to bring the Hyborian Age crashing down (which they HAD TO DO to wipe the historical slate), Robert E. Howard moved them on the chessboard.

No, I don't get a sense of that at all. I don't think the destruction of the Hyborian Age at the hands of barbarians was something REH "HAD TO DO to wipe the historical slate". It was his fantasy world and he could have ended it however he wanted it. When I read the Conan stories, ALL OF THEM, I get a sense that civilization has reached it's pinnacle, and now it's grown corrupt and weak, and it's destruction at the hands of a people who are made of the same stuff as Conan is inenivitable, just as Imperial Rome's destruction at the hands of "Germanic barbarians", in hindsight, seemed inevitable. You can cite all the barbarians from the medieval era that you'd like, but I don't recall the time that the Welsh or Highland Scots came out of the hills and brought down the entire nation of England. That's why I used the word thematically. Read any book, or watch any narrative film set in the Roman Empire. Take your pick. There's one consistent theme in all of them that's always in the back of the viewers mind while watching it, either consiously or unconsiously, that it's all going to enevitably come to an end, just as The Hyborian Age came to an end. You don't get that same message from a story set in the Middle Ages, because it never did come to an end. Western civilization continued into the modern times.

Howard's own words:

In a January 1931 letter to HPL:

When I dream of Rome I am always pitted against her, hating her with a ferocity that in my younger days persisted in my waking hours, so that I still remember, with some wonder, the savage pleasure with which I read, at the age of nine, the destruction of Rome by the Germanic barbarians.

So, when REH thinks of Rome, he fantasizes about it's destruction at the hands of barbarians, and approximately a year later he creates a faux historical world in which a Western style civilization with plenty of Latin sounding names is brought down at the hands of barbarian hordes, but the read should infer no similarties between The Hyborian West and classical Rome? So what is it, mere coincidence? And who exactly was REH writing for? Academic scholars or average people with average educations? Because I remember my "average" High School education, and I remember how excited was to read about historical barbarians because I was already into Conan. Maybe your High School education was different than mine, but for the most part the term "barbarian" didn't come up much much in discussions about medieval Europe, but it came up quite a bit when discussing classical Rome, specifically, the Barbarian Invasions, or it's more politically correct term, Germanic migrations. I would imagine that's the reason that Dark Horse and other artists are coming up with things such as Aquiromans and Mohawk Picts, because they know, like the publishers of Weird Tales, that the real money is in hooking the average Joe, not the Academic scholar, or even the semi-Howard expert for that matter. Aquiroman = civilization vs. Conan = Barbarism. It's a really simple formula, and you don't have to be either a scholar or have read even a single line of actual Howard to get it. Anyone with a basic education can.

Edited by amster, 16 February 2012 - 03:24 AM.

[Ironhand]

So Aquilonia is Rome in Medieval garb? Not being sarcastic here, just a straightforward question.

[deuce]

Whoa! I'm really sorry for stepping inside of your turf, Deuce. I didn't realize that someone had to have doctorates in both history and Howard studies to be qualified to form an opinion on this subject, though I should have by now. Obviously you're right about every single point, and I think it's clear that REH wasn't composing the Conan yarns primarily for the enjoyment of his readers. I appreciate the history lesson. I really do. Conan is HARD!
I have no idea when the "Viking Invasions" ended. I think it would be easier if you just told me.

I think I'm just going to stick with the lightweight topics like movies and comic books if it's all the same to you. This stuff is obviously too hard for me.

Where's this coming from, Amster? If I thought you were stupid or didn't know your Robert E. Howard, I never would've privately suggested that you join REHupa. That's something I've done with only 2-3 other people.

At one time or another, I've vehemently disagreed with Don Herron, Rusty Burke, Patrice Louinet, Leo Grin, Morgan Holmes, Damon Sasser, Keith Taylor, Al Harron, Jeff Shanks, Miguel Martins and Crom-knows-whoelse (usually on this forum).

I probably would've strongly disagreed (at some point) with Steve Tompkins (RIP) if he'd lived longer. Glenn Lord is the only guy I've ever given a free pass. And I should've done so for you, I guess.

So, why would I not express my disagreement with your viewpoint? If I'd just quoted your post and then simply typed "I disagree", would THAT have been better?

You made a statement. I saw an analogous situation and described it. Not much different from you saying the 2012 Ram Charger has four wheels and me pointing out the Escalade has four wheels as well.

Nowhere did I say you were an intellectual "lightweight", nor did I mock you. We've disagreed a couple of times in what, five years? I've high-fived your opinions a hundred times more than that.

When I post on a complicated topic, I usually do it thoroughly so that there's minimal need to go back and clarify. It's not just for the poster I'm replying to but also for anyone else that would like to respond.

When I disagreed with Rusty/Leo/Whoever in the past, I never told them "Hell's a-comin'." They never said it to me, either.

[amster]

Where's this coming from, Amster? If I thought you were stupid or didn't know your Robert E. Howard, I never would've privately suggested that you join REHupa. That's something I've done with only 2-3 other people.

At one time or another, I've vehemently disagreed with Don Herron, Rusty Burke, Patrice Louinet, Leo Grin, Morgan Holmes, Damon Sasser, Keith Taylor, Al Harron, Jeff Shanks, Miguel Martins and Crom-knows-whoelse (usually on this forum).

I probably would've strongly disagreed (at some point) with Steve Tompkins (RIP) if he'd lived longer. Glenn Lord is the only guy I've ever given a free pass. And I should've done so for you, I guess.

So, why would I not express my disagreement with your viewpoint? If I'd just quoted your post and then simply typed "I disagree", would THAT have been better?

You made a statement. I saw an analogous situation and described it. Not much different from you saying the 2012 Ram Charger has four wheels and me pointing out the Escalade has four wheels as well.

Nowhere did I say you were an intellectual "lightweight", nor did I mock you. We've disagreed a couple of times in what, five years? I've high-fived your opinions a hundred times more than that.

When I post on a complicated topic, I usually do it thoroughly so that there's minimal need to go back and clarify. It's not just for the poster I'm replying to but also for anyone else that would like to respond.

When I disagreed with Rusty/Leo/Whoever in the past, I never told them "Hell's a-comin'." They never said it to me, either.

Then I guess I misinterpreted you, because what I read from your response was that my point of view wasn't even worthy of consideration and that you were going to overwhelm me with as much information as possible in order to discourage me from ever expressing it on this thread again. Maybe my response to your response was an overreaction on my part, but I really don't think you can play innocent here. I've seen you crush people on this forum over trivial things like whether Conan could defeat Cthulhu in a fight. Maybe some people get more of an ancient or classical than a Medieval vibe vibe from reading the Conan stories. So what? People should be able to enjoy thm however they want to, because they're going to bring a lot more into the experience than just Howard's words on paper, like their own education,. experience, and preferances.

I can see Beyond the Black River working as a story with very little alteration if the setting was beyond Hadrian's Wall or East of the Danube, but thematically, I can't imagine it working in a Medieval setting. Maybe I'm wrong to think that way. I don't think so.

Edited by amster, 16 February 2012 - 01:16 PM.