Talk:Isildur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Elrond and Isildur?

Since this is one of the prominent changes in the movies, it's worth making sure: where is it recorded that Elrond urged Isildur to destroy the Ring? --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Of the Rings of Power (Silm): "(For) Isildur would not surrender it to Elrond and Círdan who stood by. They compelled him to cast it into the fire (…) so that it should perish (…)"

The main chance in the Jackson movies is the complete removal of the Siege of Barad-dûr, and with it the rôle of Gil-galad and Elendil. In the books, Elrond was the herald, and Círdan the lieutenant of Gil-galad, in the movie it would appear to be Isildur ruling Men and Elrond ruling the Elves. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 20:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yay! (I'm going to keep asking these questions until things are documented better.) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please do! I often do not even know where I know something from, and I should ;) [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 21:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Time between Sauron's Fall and WotR _not_ much shorter in film?

I disagree with the statement made in this article that "furthermore the time between the Fall of Sauron and the War of the Ring is much shorter" in the film. The Prologue of LOTR has dialogue: " History became legend, legend became myth, and for two-and-a-half thousand years, the Ring passed out of all knowledge" and then " The ring brought to Gollum unnatural long life. For five hundred years, it poisoned his mind." This adds up to about 3000 years, which is pretty spot on with the length of the third age (3021 years). Is there another place in the movie which contradicts this, and actually implies less time passes between Sauron's fall in the second age and the War of the Ring? JordanSamuels 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the time gap is shorter, but you're right, it's not much shorter. In the movie Sauron's defeated in 3434 Second Age, 7 years earlier than in the book (3441). In the Fellowship of the Ring extended edition DVD, Bilbo's 111th birthday is set in 1400 Shire Reckoning (3000 Third Age) – one year earlier than in the book. And in the movie Frodo's journey takes place soon after Bilbo's birthday, while in the book this happened a further 17 years later (3018 T.A.). So this period is only 25 years shorter in the movies.

Though I think the war proper started earlier, the time frame from Sauron's fall to Frodo's journey should be good enough for this...

Page Preformance

An interesting thing keeps happening when I come to this page. Everything slows to a crawl. The first time I assumed it was an open process using up my memory so I opened Windows Task Manager to look. Nothing there listed more than 40 mb of usage and the total amount being used was so far from capacity it wasn't even worth adding up. So I closed Internet Explorer (version 7.0.5630.11)entirely and opened it back up and started at the link I came to this page from (Count Orlok to vampires from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Uruk-Hai to Osgiliath to Isildur) and once again it crawled when I hit this page.

I closed IE7 and opened Windows Task Manager again but kept it on the performance tab to watch the CPU usage. I started from the first link and came all the way back. On each page leading up to this one CPU usage is minimal and only momentarily climbed when I scrolled down quickly with the mouse wheel but never topped 40% and immediately fell when I stopped scrolling down to 1-3%. When I clicked over to Isildur the CPU usage climbed very quickly to 100% and never dropped below 80% even when stationary on that page for an extended period of time. I couldn't scroll smoothly, only in jerks and jumps, and when I did try it was always registering 100% usage, also moving Windows Task Manager while this page was in the background left stacking windows until I stopped moving it long enough for them to disappear.

I scrolled down and noticed the flow chart. It is the only thing visually different than any of the pages before this one and I followed a link from the flow chart and the CPU usage went immediately back down to the normal levels. I checked going directly via an outside link (Google) and it still occurred. It didn't occur in Firefox however.

Can anyone comment on having noticed this? I have no idea what is going on 'behind the scenes' so to speak but, like I said, the only visual difference is the flow chart; could this be the reason? If so is there another way that the genealogy can be shown if this is universal to IE and not just a quirk of my own computer? Firefox is great but IE is still very widely used and having this happen for everyone using it would be a bit defeatist to the streamlined fast-loading and navigating philosophy I enjoy most about this site. Helioglyph 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LOTR Isildur.jpg

Image:LOTR Isildur.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd King of Arnor.

My understanding is that Isildur was King of Arnor, and Anárion was King of Gondo with Elendil being the 'High King'. Isildur then became the second High King of both Arnor and Gondor. It is from this lineage that Aragorn's claim to the throne of Gondor gets it's legitimacy. The opening sentance He was (briefly) the second king of Gondor and Arnor seems incorrect. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The best reading seems to be that first Elendil was High King of Everything (3320 SA), then almost immediately relegated the sub-rule of Gondor to his sons jointly when he took up residence in Annúminas. (There were dual thrones for the brothers in Osgiliath). In the campaign against Sauron, Anárion was killed in Mordor (3440 SA), and Isildur become sole ruler of Gondor. When Elendil was also killed (3441, the last year of the Second Age), Isildur became King of Arnor and High King. Then, just as his father did, he relegated sub-rule of Gondor to his nephew Menildil when he left for Arnor (2 TA) -- which of course, he never reached. So "second king" is arguably correct (though at first jointly with Anárion), but "briefly" is definitely incorrect. (It's not clear when Elendil committed the rule of Gondor to his sons, but the stones were divided in the same year as the kingdoms were founded (3320 SA). The Silmarillion says that Arnor was founded by Elendil, Gondor by the two sons, so presumably the sons ruled Gondor practically from the start, but acknowledged Elendil's suzerainty and put his name at the head of the king list.) -- Elphion (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh yes I remember now, One had Minas Anor and one had Minas Ithil - with Elendil's seat being in Osgiliath. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Elendil and Ælfwine

I question this statement:

"The character of Elendil, Isildur's father, has a long history in the development of Tolkien's legendarium. In earlier revisions, he was called Aelfwine."

I'm not aware of any connection between the characters of Elendil and Ælfwine. Ælfwine, originally Eriol, was part of the Silmarillion's original "frame story", a traveler who meets the Elves and hears many of their stories. This character dates from the first composition of the stories, in the 1920s. Elendil by contrast is a Numenorian who lived at the end of the Second Age, who became the founder and first king of Gondor and Arnor. I don't see how he could possibly be identified with the wandering Ælfwine. Furthermore, this character did NOT have a long history in the development of the mythology, but was created only during composition of The Lord of the Rings in the 1940s. Unless someone can cite a source for this, I think the entire statement should be removed. Mnudelman (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Development section and included better references. Mnudelman (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done! -- Elphion (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Gladden Fields into Isildur

I'm proposing a merge of Gladden Fields into Isildur because the Gladden Fields article lacks the notability to survive on its own. Since the article about Middle-earth wars and battles was deleted, we can't merge this article into the Disaster of the Gladden Fields article, where it would best fit. Since this location only gains importance from the battle fought there, and that battle only gains importance because of Isildur's death, I think Isildur is a good target page. Hog Farm (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per previous.
• Merge We have very few writtings of Tolkien on the subject, and what we have seems to only in reality be early drafts, otherwise we have faint mention well over 2000 years after the fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. There's very little to say here and really no notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Since we seem to agree and a month has elapsed I've completed the merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)