Male and Female Orcs

[Galadriel55]

It's possible that orcs used slave women to multiply. Or they could use the women of Khand, Harad, Rhun, and the other places that were under the dominion of Sauron. It could be part of their agreement that these countries would send a certain numer of women on a monthly basis, or something.

I find a few drawbacks to this theory, though.

a) How do they keep orc features? Crossing a human with an orc will give you something like Ferny's southener, or at least like the Uruk-hai. But if an orc is only 1/32 orc and the rest human - wouldn't he look human?
OK, so it says that they add filth to keep the appearance, but wouldn't the character also change? Become something more honourable?

b) How do they have enough women? I don't think there are enough slave women in either Mordor or Isengard to triple the army's size. And they'd have to depopulate the surrounding kingdoms of females if they get the women from aliances. All women die after giving birth to an orc, so they need thousands of women. Where do they get them?

There was something else, but I can't remember.

The argument I have for Bolg son of Azog is that they were goblins. I think that goblins have a different origin than orcs, and they might breed differently.

[Nerwen]

The argument I have for Bolg son of Azog is that they were goblins. I think that goblins have a different origin than orcs, and they might breed differently.

No evidence for that, as far as I'm aware, but anyway "Bolg son of Azog" appears in a completed text published in Tolkien's lifetime– as "canonical" as it gets. (Meanwhile, "Azog the father of Bolg" shows up in the LoTR appendices.)

This, if not simply a hoax, as for all we know it may be, is merely one of Tolkien's numerous abortive retcons. He was given to sketching out radical changes to be made to his Legendarium, then abandoning them after a paragraph or two– often, no doubt, because it became clear they were unworkable. The many contradictory versions of the origin and nature of Orcs are a case in point.

Because of all this the "last known version is always the 'true' one" approach is very problematic indeed when applied to Tolkien's writing. The man was quite capable of suddenly jotting down on the back of an envelope:

Originally Posted by J.R.R.Tolkien, in an as yet unpublished manuscript

Elven 'horses' in truth more nearly resembled unicorns. This was of course well known to Aragorn, who showed no surprise at Asfaloth's horn. Frodo's failure to remark on it is harder to explain, but may be attributed to his limited power of observation..."

[skip spence]

That's curious, I wonder if that text is from the same collection that I stumbled upon when digging through the vaults of Oxford University last spring. This little gem contained some pretty revolutionary stuff regarding the relationship of Morgoth and Hurin:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by J.R.R.Tolkien, in an as yet unpublished manuscript

...and Hurin [having escaped from his prison cell] grabbed a sword from the fallen guard and made his way up towards the surface of the mountain. Stealthily he made his way through the many halls and tunnels, ever upwards, until finally he saw a glimmer of the light of day through a high passage gate, and his heart leaped with joy. But alas, as he made his final steps towards freedom the doors shut with a heavy clang and darkness fell once again. In front of Hurin towered Morgoth himself, ironclad, armed with a great sword, Silmarils ablaze on his iron crown.
But Hurin the Steadfast was not daunted, there was a fierce rage flaming in his chest and with a terrible war-cry he hewed with his sword, intending to strike down his enemy. The two blades met with a bang, and the room was lit up by thousands of red and white sparks shooting through the air, and as the shadows returned so verily the two remained, in a stalemate, sword to sword.

Morgoth then spoke:
"Good, good, anger it the path to the Dark Side!"
"I'll never join the Dark Side! I will never join you!!" Hurin yelled.
"But there is something you don't know", said Morgoth, more quietly this time. "Hurin, I am your father!"
...

[Galin]

I'm sure it's been posted at the BarrowDowns already, but a letter came up for sale at an auction on 11 and 12 July, 2002. It's dated 21 October 1963, and is addressed to a Mrs Munby in response to a number of questions posed by her son Stephen about The Lord of the Rings. The letter is long, but in one place it reads as follows:

'There must have been orc-women. But in stories that seldom if ever see the Orcs except as soldiers of armies in the service of the evil lords we naturally would not learn much about their lives. Not much was known'.

JRRT, 1963

As William Hicklin noted, once Tolkien decided that Morgoth could not 'create' but must pervert something into orcs, he seemed pretty consistent that orcs reproduced sexually, despite that he waffled about stock. For myself, I would need more proof than this person's description (quoted by Rumil above) -- noting that we would here have an unpublished paper (or notes) that Hammond and Scull for example, had yet to see.

And for those who give great weight to 'latest if unpublished' these notes (if truly extant) should also date to after 1963-ish, considering the letter above.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The argument I have for Bolg son of Azog is that they were goblins. I think that goblins have a different origin than orcs, and they might breed differently.

This is a nomenclature issue though. Not only is 'goblin' said to be used as a translation for orc (same things, two different words), but Azog himself is referred to as an orc in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings.


By the way, from what other forum does Rumil's quote come from?

[Rumil]

Hi all,

I find myself agreeing with Nerwen and Galin that this is either a bit made up or a rejected idea. And of course that orcs=goblins (in pretty much every respect save size perhaps).

Here's the link to the thread http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=199809 from TMP, a site about wargaming.

The keen-eyed will spot that I am Timbo W

[Nerwen]

Apropos of almost nothing–

I keep returning to this last sentence and vainly trying to work out what on earth the original poster was trying to say:

Originally Posted by Dryson Bennington

The only notion that I see occuring here is so called Tolkien fans caught not by the true nature of the story itself but by social engineers attempt to label a group of real life people to fit the method of a fantasy story to make them feel liek the story is actually real when it is not.

Both troubling and strangely fascinating– it looks like it means something, but what?

Also, I'm curious as to the source of the detailed yet seemingly non-Tolkienien statements he makes with such assurance. A game? A fan-fic? One of the dodgier wikis?

[Galin]

Thanks for the link Rumil. One quibble however...

Originally Posted by Rumil

(...) And of course that orcs=goblins (in pretty much every respect save size perhaps).

Many people seem to think goblins are smaller than orcs, but there are large goblins in The Hobbit for example: 'Out jumped the goblins, big goblins, great ugly-looking goblins, lots of goblins, before you can say rocks and blocks.' (Over Hill And Under Hill), and even in The Lord of the Rings, Saruman's Uruks are referred to as goblin-soldiers.


But even without these examples (others could be raised) the real difficulty with the idea that 'goblin' has been reserved for smaller kinds is the matter of translation: I often use hund and 'dog' in illustration because there are all kinds of dogs, large, small, (whatever), and various kinds of orcs as well... and if one has two texts for example, one German one English, where the original German word hund has been translated with English 'dog' -- why would anything think that a 'dog' is smaller or larger than a hund?

The idea in theory (Appendix F 'On Translation') is that the above statement from The Hobbit ('Out jumped the goblins...') is a fully English translation of something in Westron -- but we know one of the original words here, because we know 'goblin' has been used to translate orc. The arguably confusing thing is: in The Hobbit the word orc has usually been translated with 'goblin', while in The Lord of the Rings, there are probably many more instances of orc than goblin (I never counted instances of orc! but I'm guessing they outweigh instances of goblin).

In theory this is due to the translator, and would be like Tolkien saying that he preferred the word 'hund' and so used it even in the English account along with dog. This is 'perfectly Tolkien' as an explanation too, as we know he was a lover of languages and like to create languages -- someone who is finely attuned to words, how they sound, and 'sound-sense'.

So whatever the numbers of 'goblin' or orc in both books, the explanation JRRT landed on was that one is an original word (Quendi), the other is an English translation ('Elves'). I note that JRRT published this explanation in a later edition of The Hobbit, only after Appendix F had appeared in print, thus after he had fully landed on the conceit that these tales had been translated from an original Westron.

This finally provided the answer to explain 'goblin' in both books, and is in accord with the examples from both stories.

[Alfirin]

This is a bit similar to the confusion I get when some ME related sources, including possibly the Appendix itself (it's been a while since I read it som I'm not 100% sure) equate the Uruk-Hai with the term "Hobgoblin". This seems counter intuitive since the Hobgoblins are usually described as smaller and less dangerous than goblins whereas the Uruk-hai are of course bigger and more dangerous (I not that even Wikipedia makes not of this inconsistency). If you believe that 1. Hob means something along the lines of "half" and 2. the Uruk-hai are actually Orc-Human Hybrids, it would make lingustic sense, but it still seem counter intuitive.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

This is a bit similar to the confusion I get when some ME related sources, including possibly the Appendix itself (it's been a while since I read it som I'm not 100% sure) equate the Uruk-Hai with the term "Hobgoblin".

Tolkien actually never equates these terms (that I'm aware of), but you may be noting this on certain websites. The reason for this would seem to be: in the same explanation (published in later editions of The Hobbit, as noted) that reveals 'goblin' has been used to translate orc, Tolkien adds: or hobgoblin for the larger kinds.

Somewhere (in a letter I believe) I think Tolkien noted that 'hobgoblin' should probably refer to smaller kinds! but he had already published this in any case, to explain the use of this word in The Hobbit, which I think only occurs once. Thus some are equating hobgoblin or 'large goblin' with Saruman's 'larger' goblin soldiers.

And the statement (currently on Wikipedia): 'Tolkien then renamed them [Hobgoblins] as Uruks or Uruk-hai in an attempt to correct his mistake' is someone's opinion, the 'mistake' referring to Tolkien's statement in a letter. To my mind this really needs no correcting in any case, despite any external factors. If 'Hobgoblin' refers to larger kinds within the context of Middle-earth then so be it (in my opinion).


Note again that, despite this explanatory note appearing in The Hobbit it was added to a later edition, so JRRT had not published 'hobgoblin' for 'large goblin' until after he had published a tale in which the Uruk-hai appear. Tolkien would hardly rename Hobgoblins Uruk-hai to correct a 'mistake' he had yet to make.

If you believe that 1. Hob means something along the lines of "half" and 2. the Uruk-hai are actually Orc-Human Hybrids, it would make lingustic sense, but it still seem counter intuitive.

What the Uruk-hai really are is quite the debate, but anyway if you are thinking of the word Hobbit (and you need not be of course): internally, yet with reference to an invented translation, Hobbit comes from 'holbytla', so the altered beginning of 'Hobbit' relates to the meaning 'hole'.

Even though a Hobbit (a kuduk) is a halfling (banakil)!

It's nicely confusing

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Galin

Tolkien actually never equates these terms (that I'm aware of), but you may be noting this on certain websites. The reason for this would seem to be: in the same explanation (published in later editions of The Hobbit, as noted) that reveals 'goblin' has been used to translate orc, Tolkien adds: or hobgoblin for the larger kinds.

Somewhere (in a letter I believe) I think Tolkien noted that 'hobgoblin' should probably refer to smaller kinds! but he had already published this in any case, to explain the use of this word in The Hobbit, which I think only occurs once. Thus some are equating hobgoblin or 'large goblin' with Saruman's 'larger' goblin soldiers.

And the statement (currently on Wikipedia): 'Tolkien then renamed them [Hobgoblins] as Uruks or Uruk-hai in an attempt to correct his mistake' is someone's opinion, the 'mistake' referring to Tolkien's statement in a letter. To my mind this really needs no correcting in any case, despite any external factors. If 'Hobgoblin' refers to larger kinds within the context of Middle-earth then so be it (in my opinion).


Note again that, despite this explanatory note appearing in The Hobbit it was added to a later edition, so JRRT had not published 'hobgoblin' for 'large goblin' until after he had published a tale in which the Uruk-hai appear. Tolkien would hardly rename Hobgoblins Uruk-hai to correct a 'mistake' he had yet to make.





What the Uruk-hai really are is quite the debate, but anyway if you are thinking of the word Hobbit (and you need not be of course): internally, yet with reference to an invented translation, Hobbit comes from 'holbytla', so the altered beginning of 'Hobbit' relates to the meaning 'hole'.

Even though a Hobbit (a kuduk) is a halfling (banakil)!

It's nicely confusing

Pretty convincing, though if you assume the "hob" is from the same root as hobbit, it actually makes a stronger case for the little unimproved ones to be the Hobgoblins; the "gobins of the hole" or "who live in holes" i.e. the ones who are still affected by/afraid of light.

I usually interpret the "hai" suffix as being something along the lines of "great", "fierce", or "improved". After all we do have at least one other name with the same suffix, Olog-Hai (the souped up, can't be turned to stone as long as the power is there, trolls Sauron makes use of). Off the top of my head I can;t think of a case where "Olog" is used on it's own for a non-souped up troll (then again once you get past the Hobbit, where these terms haven't been used yet, you don't meet a lot of non-souped up trolls) but presumably that is what they are called. The Orcs also call the Drunedain "Oghor-Hai" despite the fact they are smaller than most men, but given how good the Drunedain are at killing Orcs this could be "hai" being used in the context of "fierce". Presumably, in Black speech, Wargs are likely referred to as "(whatever the Black Speech word for "wolf" is)"-"Hai" as well.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

There was something else, but I can't remember.

Possibly that cross-breeds are sterile?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Possibly that cross-breeds are sterile?

THANK YOU! Now I remember! - Ok, so lets pretend that an orc gets a human woman pregnant. And she has a girl orc (it's a 50-50 thing, unless its some misshapen creature who isn't developed enough to be either gender). Paradoxical, aint it?

I asked a friend of mine who's a doctor if it's possible to somehow change the genes of a person to make it impossible for girls to be born. This is what she told me:
Women have X+X chromosomes; men have X+Y chromosomes. An embrio always gets an X chromosome from its mother. It could get either a Y or an X from its father. The chromosome it gets from the father determines the gender. There is no known way to controll which chromosome will be given. Also, you cannot completely eliminate the X chromosome - you'd get a 'vegetable' person (such orcs are useless).

Conclusion: there must have been orc-girls, and therefore orc-women.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Conclusion: there must have been orc-girls, and therefore orc-women.

As William Cloud Hicklin said above, since it is said that the Orcs "had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar", I would think the existence of females in their population a foregone conclusion.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

THANK YOU! Now I remember! - Ok, so lets pretend that an orc gets a human woman pregnant. And she has a girl orc (it's a 50-50 thing, unless its some misshapen creature who isn't developed enough to be either gender). Paradoxical, aint it?

I asked a friend of mine who's a doctor if it's possible to somehow change the genes of a person to make it impossible for girls to be born. This is what she told me:
Women have X+X chromosomes; men have X+Y chromosomes. An embrio always gets an X chromosome from its mother. It could get either a Y or an X from its father. The chromosome it gets from the father determines the gender. There is no known way to controll which chromosome will be given. Also, you cannot completely eliminate the X chromosome - you'd get a 'vegetable' person (such orcs are useless).

Conclusion: there must have been orc-girls, and therefore orc-women.

While that makes sense, the central claim this person Rumil quotes is making is that Orcs weren't bred by natural means at all, but were instead somehow grown in slime pits, as in the movies.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

While that makes sense, the central claim this person Rumil quotes is making is that Orcs weren't bred by natural means at all, but were instead somehow grown in slime pits, as in the movies.

PJ seems to have thought Orcs were a cross between Aliens and Yoda.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

THANK YOU! Now I remember! - Ok, so lets pretend that an orc gets a human woman pregnant. And she has a girl orc (it's a 50-50 thing, unless its some misshapen creature who isn't developed enough to be either gender). Paradoxical, aint it?

I still think it's unlikely. Hardly any race will actually give over their women. What's more, if they did, they'd die out pretty soon

I agree with Nerwen, that they were made in slime pits. Actually, I personally prefer the theory of them being corrupted elves. However, I can't see how Morgoth (or Sauron) could have got so many.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I agree with Nerwen, that they were made in slime pits.

Er- agree with me? I never said that in the first place– I said, "this person Rumil quotes" says so, not me. There is, after all, no actual evidence that Tolkien intended this– unless we accept at face value this fellow's claim to have read it in a previously unknown manuscript. If you'll read back through the thread, you'll see that I've in fact been putting forward reasons why we shouldn't.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Actually, I personally prefer the theory of them being corrupted elves. However, I can't see how Morgoth (or Sauron) could have got so many.

I also like the "corrupted elf" theory. And if orcs are based on elves, they have to multiply the same way. Makes any sense?

I highly dislike the "mud pit theory" that is shown in the movies. Neither Sauron nor Morgoth could create, so how could they give life to a chunk of mud? Even Aule - who wasn't evil - couldn't do that without the helf of Eru.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I also like the "corrupted elf" theory. And if orcs are based on elves, they have to multiply the same way. Makes any sense?

I highly dislike the "mud pit theory" that is shown in the movies. Neither Sauron nor Morgoth could create, so how could they give life to a chunk of mud? Even Aule - who wasn't evil - couldn't do that without the helf of Eru.

True. But just imagine Orcs copulating. Ouch.

Mud-pit theory...never gave it much thought. Seems highly unscientific.

I vote either corrupted elves or cross-breeds. Maybe a bit of both?

[skip spence]

I think it's pretty clear that Orcs, Men and Elves biologically are the same species since they are interbreedable. The corruption that Morgoth achieved is mainly a moral one, he corrupted the souls of the to-be-Orcs you might say, yet, not even an Orc is born evil and they can potentially be saved, that Gandalf makes clear in LotR. I think I remember that Tolkien also makes it clear [in The Hobbit] that there are lots of Orcs around even today, and frankly, it hard to argue against that. Orcs aren't magically created monsters with long fangs and green skin. They are us, or rather, the worst examples of mankind.

I mean sure, you can see the difference between an Orc and a Man or an Elf, just as you can see the difference between say a Samoan and a Scandinavian and a West African, but those are "racial" differences and basically: Orcs are Men (and/or ex-Elves if you conscribe to that earlier theory) and they certainly have women because otherwise they simply could not multiply.

Could go further with this but no time for that now...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

True. But just imagine Orcs copulating. Ouch.

Mud-pit theory...never gave it much thought. Seems highly unscientific.

I vote either corrupted elves or cross-breeds. Maybe a bit of both?

Well, Tolkien played with different ideas of the origin of Orcs– while corrupted Elves seem to be the most consistent version*, and the one appearing in The Silmarillion, Men were another (although this presented some problems- cf. the strained attempt in "Morgoth's Ring" to make it fit the existing chronology). He even briefly speculated that they might have been beasts given humanoid shape (Morgoth as Dr Moreau)! The common thread in all this is that Orcs were distortions of natural creatures, not magical constructs– that Evil could only twist, not create life was for Tolkien a very important point. (The Trolls in "The Hobbit" gave him a nasty metaphysical headache later on, after he had decided they were purely artificial.)

The question of cross-breeding is different, though– it's pretty much official that the Isengard Orcs were hybrids, the result of mating Orcs with humans. (I think it's quite understandable that P.J. chose not to depict that.:eek ) I don't think these Half-Orcs need have been sterile– the Peredhil weren't, after all.



*Also, technically the "latest-known", I think, although by that stage we're talking about some very muddled fragments.

[Kyani]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I still think it's unlikely. Hardly any race will actually give over their women. What's more, if they did, they'd die out pretty soon

I agree with Nerwen, that they were made in slime pits. Actually, I personally prefer the theory of them being corrupted elves. However, I can't see how Morgoth (or Sauron) could have got so many.

Why, if we're thinking they breeding naturally, would they get rid of their girls? They'd be pretty valuable. i don't go in for the slime pits because they're quite clearly not zombies, and I think Tolkein is clear that neither Sauron nor Saruman can give a being the spark of life on their own. They can't mold life out of mud. If they have a short gestation and maturation period (say 4-5 years as was suggested) you wouldn't need to deplete human nations of their women, you'd need at most a couple hundred, over a period of a couple years. If you base the rate of girls:boys on a human model you can have up 55 hybrid orc females the first year. I personally think this was what Tolkein had in mind but he was too much a gentleman concerned with the norms of his age to give us details.

I should have looked here first when i signed up, rather than asked my question.... u guys are experts =)

[Nerwen]

Welcome to the Downs, Kyani!

And don't feel shy about asking questions– we all have many questions we'd like to ask Mr Bennington, but alas! We seem to have scared him away.

(Btw, in case there's any confusion on the issue: I never said I thought Orcs *were* bred in slime pits, as in the films– in fact I think that's just a typo in Galadriel's post.)

[Kyani]

Thank you Nerwen!
Glad to be here