# Where GW got their ideas for 40k?



## lawrence96 (Sep 1, 2008)

hey all last friday i purchased a series of books by the name of Sten. while reading these books i came across a few interesting similarities to 40k, this books series was copyrighted in 1982 so predates 40K (i think)

1) Sten is set in the _fourtieth_ century
2) The stories revovle around a star spanning territory known as an imperium
3) The ruler of the of this empire is called the _ Eternal Emporer_ who is supposed to be immortal
4) He discovered a material that allowed inter-system travel
5) The main character joined the _imperial guard_
6) The weapon of choice (the willysgun) fires a projectile along a laser that when it touches the traget explodes with the impact of a grenade literally blowing people up
7) Earth is known as Terra

so has any one else noticed any similarities between 40k and other ficticous works? if so ist them down and just what parts are similar and ets see if we can figure out where GW got there ideas from!


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

semi possible, but, 40k is probably a merger of that and a twist on their fantasy game that was out alot longer.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

lawrence96 said:


> hey all last friday i purchased a series of books by the name of Sten. while reading these books i came across a few interesting similarities to 40k, this books series was copyrighted in 1982 so predates 40K (i think)
> 
> 1) Sten is set in the _fourtieth_ century
> 2) The stories revovle around a star spanning territory known as an imperium
> ...


To play Devil's advocate.

1) Well, what I can I say there
2) Imperium is latin for Empire, so it's actually a very old, once common word. 
3) Emperors were often venerated as gods, and thus immortal (till they died)
4) Again, fairly common in almost every sci fi setting
5) GW ran out of ideas 
6) I am going to eat mac and cheese in a couple minutes, but actually, this is a pretty common conception of weapon, which there are many working prototypes of in common day. 
7) Terra Firma is another name for earth, also a very old, once common word.


----------



## imntdead (Apr 21, 2008)

I am going to agree with Arcane for the most part, words like Imperium and Terra are found threw out sci-fi so its actually fairly common. 

Emperors being referred to as gods well come on who hasn't done that in sci-fi, fantasy or even history.

If someone discovers a material that allows inter-system travel then yeah they could easily become the head honcho and rule an interstellar empire that's not to hard to think about 

There is an Imperial Guard, just as I bet that there is an imperial navy as well, since its all apart of the Imperium.

the fortieth century bit could easily be coincidental, I once thought up of an alternate reality sci-fi story that took place with in the same time frame as a story that belonged to a friend of mine and neither of us knew of the others story so we merged them.

Speaking of merging i am going to definitely agree with KhainiteAssassin, they most certainly merged a great deal of their fantasy into a sci-fi setting.

They could have easily just took bits and pieces from all sorts of sci-fi material combined it with fantasy and BOOM! you get 40k


----------



## Unknown Soldier (Oct 24, 2008)

Well, aside from Warhammer, the two biggest inspirations were the Aliens Movie and the weekly 2000 AD Comic Books.

2000 AD in particular featured a number of stories which seem to have been almost directly adapted into the 40k universe and the artwork heavily influenced the overall look. There are too many references to mention, but just off the top of my head -

Nemesis - Xenos, the purge, the Inquistion
Judge Dredd - Mega Cities, cyborgs, Arbites

And many, many more, but I can't be bothered to pull out my ancient comic book collection and check everything.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Many of the artists that worked on 2000AD also worked for GW, not least because GW produced Judge Dredd and Rogue Trooper games and minis. Would have loved to have seen a Nemesis the Warlock game, that would have been awesome... (as would a Slaine Mac Roth game of course).

Apart from that Rick Priestly was a big fan of 2000AD.

But there are other obvious influences on both WH and 40k - the most obvious joint influences are LotR and the Elric stories (Elves, even the word "Eldar", Orc/ks, Chaos). Dune is also quite an influence it seems to me.

But the "40th century"/"40th Millennium" thing came about because (I heard anyway) it was originally set 2,000 years in the future, around 3,985AD, and called "Warhammer 4000"; but Priestly decided to add another zero so that people didn't try to extrapolate the near future from the game, and say "well the Imperium is obviously Russia/America/China/Switzerland" or whatever. punting it really far in the future stopped that happening.

:futurological cyclops:


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

From what I have alwasy understood is that 40k evolved from the book Starship Troopers as well as several other ideas. IIRC in the original movie Starship Troopers in the Thank you like games Workshop is actually credited


----------



## keytag33 (Apr 20, 2008)

They took ideas from all over the place. I think they got their idea for the tech priest from Asimov's _Foundation_ series. 

I'm sure if we all looked hard enough we good find things in most of the popular sci-fi/fantasy that was read at the time these games where being devloped.

It has been said that there are no new ideas anymore.


----------



## gwmaniac (Sep 1, 2008)

lawrence96 said:


> 7) Earth is known as Terra


Actually, Terra is the latin word for earth, like Tierra is earth for spanish, so really, Terra is just the latin way of saying Earth, which explains the classical-roman feel of the Imperium.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

you fools! This shits actually going to happen! The creator of GW is the EMPEROR! ALL HAIL!!!!


----------



## imntdead (Apr 21, 2008)

ckcrawford said:


> you fools! This shits actually going to happen! The creator of GW is the EMPEROR! ALL HAIL!!!!


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
oh yeah

LONG LIVE THE EMPEROR!


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

How about Tolkien? He seems to have influenced most fantasy/sci fi.


----------



## vacantghost (Feb 16, 2008)

i dont really think tokien was the actual creator of elves, orcs that sort of thing but what i can say is already said by the others. W40k is greatly influenced by starship troopers, i think the similarities are both the arachnics and the mobile infantry. i can see the mobile infantry as the imperial guardsmen, fighting futiley without losing hope. and then the bugs, their similarities with the tyranid are uncanny, similar to the hive mind its equivalent to the brain bug. and then the rest of the lesser creatures. Then comes 2000 AD, like said by someone before on the previous thread, the artists who worked on 2000 AD brought their style to 40k as some of them worked for GW aswell. Things like the rogue trooper -his personality- judge dredd -the arbites, huge hive worlds, denizens etc.- Judge dredd especially, huge hulking police guy which resembles the arbites of Necromunda, with robots and shotguns, yeah their gungs, those automatic handheld grenade launchers, bolters anyone?


----------



## MyI)arkness (Jun 8, 2008)

Seriously, gw must have aquired Holy Grail or something, and used it as Bucket of Awesome to pull out the 40k stuff.


----------



## your master (Jun 14, 2008)

Tolkein and his books are the most influencal books in history from him all fantasy books have come. before his books elfs worked for santa and dwarfes were basically gnomes. warhammer was created from tolkeins books 40k came after this and had its roots in warhammer but with a futuristic edge


----------



## NecronCowboy (Jan 8, 2009)

40K background seems to be inspired by so many different things it would be impossible to list them all. I constantly see inspiration through out recorded history.

I also wouldn't say that GW 'got their ideas' from anything, I would say things inspired their ideas.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

There a lot of comparisons between WFB and real history - and 40k comes from WFB.

Tomb Kings/Thousand Sons = Egypitians etc. 
Brettonia = Medieval England (or at least based on the Arthurian Legends)

The Imperium (ultramarines in particular) have a Roman feel. (I mean Calgar's full name is Marneus Augustus Calgar!) Theres an Emperor, and the word 'Imperium' is latin for Empire.

But i agree that the elves/dwarves/Orcs etc have their roots in Tolkien.


----------



## NecronCowboy (Jan 8, 2009)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> But i agree that the elves/dwarves/Orcs etc have their roots in Tolkien.


I see what you mean, but it's not like Tolkien came up with the idea of elves or dwarves or even orcs.

Warhammer is a melting pot inspired by previous works of fantasy/sci fi, the same way Tolkien's middle earth was at the time.

Eldar I see as a cross between many different asian cultures (mostly Japanese and Chinese) and the elves of fantasy litterature.

Necron's I see as being stargate meets the terminator meets other somewhat modern sci fi.


----------



## KarlFranz40k (Jan 30, 2009)

Well its extremely difficult now to come up with original sci-fi fluff without some form of plagerism. 

But GW's stuff is so unique in its execution that you really can't complain. The whole warp idea, is that unique? Has anyone else thought of an extra dimension full of deamons that can be used for long ranged transport and communication? Tyranids are from Alien and Starship Troopers. Bio-engineered super-monks is plagerism with a twist, tau are sorta like Gundam and all that japanease stuff.


----------



## Mastermime (Mar 27, 2009)

GW were really clever in the beginning, with massive emphasis on their fluff, something they forgot with 3rd ed. They put enough of everything in there to attract gamers from all ranges. IG attracted the wwII crowd with the Valhallans, Cadians etc. Eldar, Orks and Squats (I miss them). Got your DnD mob to come over, Chaos and Marines got your Battletech players and so on. 

But what really hooked people wasn't the miniatures, But IMHO but the Fluff. I mean Ancient races, huge hordes of killer bugs and a crumbling empire rotting from within and being demolished from without. There is a huge overwhelming sense of futility about the universe and misery sells, quite a bit judging from the profits. 

But the fluff seems to be taking second place to the rules once again. I'm very dissapointed with the Codexes of late, when you compare 3rd ed chaos to 4th, you feel in awe of the fluff, then compare 4th to 5th and you can see they have taken a step back. Sad really.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

NecronCowboy said:


> I see what you mean, but it's not like Tolkien came up with the idea of elves or dwarves or even orcs.
> 
> Warhammer is a melting pot inspired by previous works of fantasy/sci fi, the same way Tolkien's middle earth was at the time.
> 
> ...


1 - yes he did. Not Dwarves admitedly; he stole them from Viking Sagas. But 'elves' meant little flying pixie-folk that lived in flowers (or made shoes and spilt milk sometimes). He _invented_ orcs.

2 - there's very little 'previous works of fantasy' in Middle Earth. There's a hell of a lot of _mythology_ though. Tolkien, pretty much single-handed, _invented_ the fantasy genre.

3 - Elves (and Eldar) are Atlantean Irish (now) and Anglo-Finno-Welsh (go figure) in Tolkien.

4 - Necrons are Cybermen from the Mummy's Tomb. Two childhood nightmares rolled into one, there...

:mythbusting cyclops:


----------



## NecronCowboy (Jan 8, 2009)

KarlFranz40k said:


> Well its extremely difficult now to come up with original sci-fi fluff without some form of plagerism.
> 
> But GW's stuff is so unique in its execution that you really can't complain. The whole warp idea, is that unique? Has anyone else thought of an extra dimension full of deamons that can be used for long ranged transport and communication? Tyranids are from Alien and Starship Troopers. Bio-engineered super-monks is plagerism with a twist, tau are sorta like Gundam and all that japanease stuff.


It's not plagerism, that's just silly. Show me a story that anyone ever came up with, without being inspired by something else.....

Plagerism is a very serious thing to say, and does not belong in this discussion at all.


----------



## NecronCowboy (Jan 8, 2009)

Red Orc said:


> 1 - yes he did. Not Dwarves admitedly; he stole them from Viking Sagas. But 'elves' meant little flying pixie-folk that lived in flowers (or made shoes and spilt milk sometimes). He _invented_ orcs.
> 
> 2 - there's very little 'previous works of fantasy' in Middle Earth. There's a hell of a lot of _mythology_ though. Tolkien, pretty much single-handed, _invented_ the fantasy genre.
> 
> ...


Just like the real mythbusters your mythbusting sucks because you are wrong, he did not come up with any of those.

You say the Eldar aren't asian, yet thier guns fire ninja stars, the use marial arts, and float around on Mongolian treasure ships? I can name like 20 more reasons if I had the time.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

NecronCowboy said:


> Just like the real mythbusters your mythbusting sucks because you are wrong, he did not come up with any of those.
> 
> You say the Eldar aren't asian, yet thier guns fire ninja stars, the use marial arts, and float around on Mongolian treasure ships? I can name like 20 more reasons if I had the time.


Now now, there's no reason to be rude.

Tell me where there are orcs before Tolkien and I'll gladly bow to your superior knowlege. If you can't, I think you should take it back.

No 'Asian' (by which I assume you mean Japanese) gun that I've ever heard of fires Ninja stars. "Martial Arts" means "arts of war". Everyone uses them. I presume you're talking about particular unarmed combat disciplines? well, they also use spells and psychic powers, and gravity-repulsing vehicles, like all Japanese people do I assume.

What are Mongolian Treasure Ships (as I asked on the other thread)?

You have obviously never studied the Eldar language or culture. If you had, you'd realise that the majority of their Craftworlds were named after Celtic festivals (Beltane, Imbolc, Lughnasad, Samhain) and concepts (such as Hy-Bresail), and many of their heroes after Irish gods (such as Nuada Argetlam). Their language is heavily based on Gaelic.

:no really, stun me cyclops:


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Red Orc said:


> 1 - yes he did. Not Dwarves admitedly; he stole them from Viking Sagas. But 'elves' meant little flying pixie-folk that lived in flowers (or made shoes and spilt milk sometimes). He _invented_ orcs.
> 
> 2 - there's very little 'previous works of fantasy' in Middle Earth. There's a hell of a lot of _mythology_ though. Tolkien, pretty much single-handed, _invented_ the fantasy genre.


I have to call you on this one. Tolkien borrowed most of these things from Norse Mythology. Even Middle-Earth is a realm from Norse Mythology, which was created for mortals by the Gods. 

Heimdallr, son of Odin, was ordered to create a race of men who would help protect the cosmos when they died (by going to Valhalla to prepare for Ragnarok). He created a race called Thrall's kin. The thralls had black and wrinkled skin, ugly faces, bent backs, crooked noses and long heels. These are in essence, Orcs, and how the ancient Norse explained people of different races on earth, whom which they did not have very much peaceful contact with. He would go on to create two other races, of different types before resting, satisfied. 

Proto-Norse alpt, is the word which is thought to have been adapted into Elf, which means swan and eternal. The Scandinavians believed that the lakes and waters of the world were entrances to the underworld. This his parallel to things like the Greek Avernus, which is the entrance into Tarterus and Elysium. Today, we throw coins into wells to make wishes, but in the past the Norse would throw gold, treasures and even slaves into the lakes as an offering to the gods to balance for victories. The swan was seen as a sacred creature because it glided majestically on the waters. It was believe these waters held nymphs and and fey, which were pure creatures, much like the swans. These were loosely created into Elves. 

Tolkien did not create elves nor orcs. He simply adapted them for his stories. Also, much fantasy did exist, such as the stories of Conan the Barbarian who fought demons, sorcerers, aliens and monsters.

The story of the One Ring is not even original since it was loosely based from Der Ring des Nibelungen, a play by Wagner which was based on Nibelungenlied, an ancient Norse saga of Siegfried.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Arcane said:


> I have to call you on this one...


And I'm afraid I get to call you back...



Arcane said:


> Tolkien borrowed most of these things from Norse Mythology. Even Middle-Earth is a realm from Norse Mythology, which was created for mortals by the Gods...


...and I said there was a lot of mythology in it. I'm aware of the significance of Midgard. What NecronCowboy claimed was there was previous _fantasy_ in it. So, thank you for agreeing with me.



Arcane said:


> Heimdallr, son of Odin, was ordered to create a race of men who would help protect the cosmos when they died (by going to Valhalla to prepare for Ragnarok). He created a race called Thrall's kin. The thralls had black and wrinkled skin, ugly faces, bent backs, crooked noses and long heels. These are in essence, Orcs...


I never claimed Tolkien had invented goblins, or trolls, or ugly evil people; I said he had invented _orcs_. The Thrall-kin were not orcs, though they are similar to be sure.




Arcane said:


> ...
> Proto-Norse alpt, is the word which is thought to have been adapted into Elf, which means swan and eternal...


No, the root of "elf" is _thought by some etymologists and philologists (including Tolkien) to be etymologically related_ to "swan" (as in 'elvet', a young swan). Also "white" (Albus in latin). Also "alder" (the tree- cf "yldra" in Old English, and "Huldra" in Old Norse. I've never heard that it means "eternal", you have the advantage of me here, can you provide a source for that?



Arcane said:


> ...
> The Scandinavians believed that the lakes and waters of the world were entrances to the underworld. This his parallel to things like the Greek Avernus, which is the entrance into Tarterus and Elysium. Today, we throw coins into wells to make wishes, but in the past the Norse would throw gold, treasures and even slaves into the lakes as an offering to the gods to balance for victories...


Think you may be confusing the Norse with the Gauls and Britons here, though I'm no expert in late iron age Scandinavia, a subject it's actually quite hard to get good archaeological data on, at least for me...



Arcane said:


> ...
> The swan was seen as a sacred creature because it glided majestically on the waters. It was believe these waters held nymphs and and fey, which were pure creatures, much like the swans. These were loosely created into Elves...


Very loosely. My point was that Tolkien's elves are very different from _fantasy_ elves, more like _mythological_ elves... so again you're agreeing with me.



Arcane said:


> ... Tolkien did not create elves ...


...agreed, he adapted them as I said originally...



Arcane said:


> ...nor orcs. He simply adapted them for his stories...


If orcs = previous goblins or trolls = the thrall-kin, sure. If, however it means "evil warlike mechanically-inclined horde beings called orcs" (for which there examples after Tolkien, but not before), then he _did_ create orcs. He might have used elements of earlier creations, but i would argue combining different elements _plus_ renaming is enough to 'create'. If you don't agree, fine; but I think we'll have to agree that we have different ideas about what 'create' means.



Arcane said:


> ...
> Also, much fantasy did exist, such as the stories of Conan the Barbarian who fought demons, sorcerers, aliens and monsters...


I didn't say there was _no_ fantasy. 



Arcane said:


> ... The story of the One Ring is not even original since it was loosely based from Der Ring des Nibelungen, a play by Wagner which was based on Nibelungenlied, an ancient Norse saga of Siegfried.


No, the Nibelungenlied is a _German_ (south German, Bavarian or Austrian that is) poem about Siegfried. The Norse poem is the AtlakviDa (I hope you'll excuse me, I can't fing the Old Norse/Old English character set, so "D" will have to stand for "eth"), and it's about Sigurd.

Both the Niblungenleid and the AtlakviDa are based on earlier lost works, perhaps Frankish. Most of the main action is set round the Rhine and Danube, and it's to do with the destruction of the Burgundians by the Huns in the 5th century. Little to do with the Norse, in fact, who aren't historically attested until the 8th century, in a different part of Europe.

But certainly it was an influence. There are pretty close parallels between the early drafts of the story of Beren and the Silmarils with both the Nibelungenlied and tBeowulf. But, as I've repeatedly said, I'm not at all disputing that Tolkien used _mythology_, in fact I make precisely the claim that he _did_ use mythology several posts ago.

What I'm disputing is that he borrowed extensively from _fantasy_, or that there was a 'fantasy genre' to borrow from. Little trace of Edgar Rice Borroughs or Robert Howard in LotR or the Silmarillion I feel. Added to which, as Tolkien began writing in 1916, he could had hardly have been much influenced (at least in the beginning) by Howard, who was only 10 years old at the time.

:and who invented the cyclops?:


----------



## Glenn (Feb 15, 2008)

Thought I'd jump in here. 

Much of 40k is influenced by 2000AD and one of the oldest sci-fi sagas around, Dune. Due has been a major influence on Star Wars eg sand people and the fremen. 

The Emperor of Man is very much based on the Paul Atreides and his son the God Emperor of Dune Leto 2. Both Paul and Leto have the ability to see the future much like the Emperor in 40k. I highly recomend giving Dune a bash as it may give some of us some insight as to why the Emperor couldn't see the future clearly around the time of Heresy. It is also worth mentioning that Leto 2 commits many an attrocity to help humanity progress which is very similar to the Emperor and his great crusade. 

In Dune the Guild are the only people capable of space travell thanks to the ablity to fold space which is similar to the Navigators on Imperial cruisers. The God Emperor Leto 2 is a major inspiration for the Emperor of Mankind. 

It is also illegal to build a computer/robot that can think in Due due to a galactic civil war that happened far in the past. This is very similar to the Mechanicum which use servitors etc rather than robots due to a huge civil war between the stone and iron men. 

These are just a few comparisons between Dune and 40k

Cheers


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Red Orc said:


> And I'm afraid I get to call you back...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Elves do indeed come from Norse Mythology in the form of the álfar. The Saga of King Hrolf kraki details them for instance. Just google the word Elf if you need more info. 

The connection of water, sacrifices and the Aesir, is found in some archeological finds, where weapons, boats and human remains are found in Scandinavian bogs and lakes. Perfectly usable and high quality weapons and equipment were destroyed and prisoners were executed and thrown in a holy lake or hung in a holy tree. This was a sacrifice to the gods and their realm. This is very similar to some British traditions, such as the holiness of the tree. Hanging things on a tree for example, is holy (think Christmas) because Odin hung himself on the tree (Yggdrasill), and thus an ancient symbolic sacrifice would be the same hanging. King Víkar, in Gautrek's Saga was hanged this way in sacrifice to Odin (aka the pagan Blot). 

Indeed, Siegfried is German, but his story is based on others like Sigurd from whom which he is adapted in the Volsung saga and Poetic Edda. 

Saying that Tolkien invented fantasy completely ignores Wagner's works like the Ring cycle and Snorri. Just because these men were not thought of as authors does not mean that they were the equivalent during their time. 

Tolkien often used the word Goblin instead of Orc, as seen in The Hobbit, with Orcs only referring to the larger of the breed and it is well known that Goblins existed far before his books. This leads one to believe that Orcs are a derivative of Goblins and Thrallkin in general. If you like, read the section about the Goblins of the Misty Mountain for this example. 

The word orc it's self is Old English for Demon and he borrowed it because it fit the setting. Beowulf infact features this word, which leads back to my segment on Norse-Germanic myth/fantasy. 

As for conparisons with Howard, it cannot be acurately debated against since Howard published his first works in 1928, while The Hobbit was written in the early 30s and was not published until 1937. Infact, in an interview, Tolkien "indicated that he rather liked Howard's Conan stories.".

I will give you that Tolkien may have invented the genre of high fantasy, but fantasy in general existed in various forms far before him.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Red Orc said:


> ... there's very little 'previous works of fantasy' in Middle Earth. There's a hell of a lot of _mythology_ though...





Arcane said:


> Elves do indeed come from Norse Mythology in the form of the álfar. The Saga of King Hrolf kraki details them for instance...


Glad you agree with me. But what you haven't answered is where you get your info that 'elf' means 'eternal', which is what I asked.



Arcane said:


> ... The connection of water, sacrifices and the Aesir, is found in some archeological finds, where weapons, boats and human remains are found in Scandinavian bogs and lakes. Perfectly usable and high quality weapons and equipment were destroyed and prisoners were executed and thrown in a holy lake or hung in a holy tree...


Trees are irrelevent to the question of lakes, which is what I asked you about. And sacrifices in Danish bogs in the early first millenium are irrelevant to the Aesir, who were first written about in the late first millenium in Norway and Iceland. We have no way of knowing whether the gods of Denmark (before the Danes were even there) were the same as the gods of the later Norse, just as we have no real evidence that the Gods of the Ssaxons were the same as the Norse. A few vague connections, some of the names are the same, but we have little real evidence.



Arcane said:


> ...This was a sacrifice to the gods and their realm. This is very similar to some British traditions, such as the holiness of the tree. Hanging things on a tree for example, is holy (think Christmas) because Odin hung himself on the tree (Yggdrasill), and thus an ancient symbolic sacrifice would be the same hanging. King Víkar, in Gautrek's Saga was hanged this way in sacrifice to Odin (aka the pagan Blot)...


Hanging on a tree is not the same as thrown in a lake, and neither have any connection with Elves.




Arcane said:


> ...Indeed, Siegfried is German, but his story is based on others like Sigurd from whom which he is adapted in the Volsung saga and Poetic Edda...


My point was these are southern Germanic stories that were later transfered to Scandinavia, not the other way around. They originated around the Rhine. Seigfreid was a Frank, the Gibuchings were Burgundians. 



Arcane said:


> ... Saying that Tolkien invented fantasy completely...


...which I didn't; but I was drawing a distinction between _fantasy_ and _mythology_...



Arcane said:


> ... ignores Wagner's works like the Ring cycle and Snorri. Just because these men were not thought of as authors does not mean that they were the equivalent during their time...


Not the same thing at all I'll maintain; anyway, I didn't say had practically invented the fantasy _setting_, I said practically invented the fantasy _genre_. I said there was "little" previous fantasy around. Mythology (like the sagas and lays, and tales directly derived from them) is not 'the fantasy genre', it is mythology.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. The fantasy _novel_ genre is what I was refering to, so 1 - fantasy not mythology (retelling Norse myths doesn't count, not fantasy), 2 - novels (so actually Conan doesn't count, not novels). But I'll admit, that may be a result of a certain snobbishness on my part. I don't like "High" fantasy as a label, but that's what I was referring to. Not "pulp" fantasy like Conan and Tarzan, which were generally short stories.



Arcane said:


> ... Tolkien often used the word Goblin instead of Orc, as seen in The Hobbit, with Orcs only referring to the larger of the breed and it is well known that Goblins existed far before his books. This leads one to believe that Orcs are a derivative of Goblins and Thrallkin in general. If you like, read the section about the Goblins of the Misty Mountain for this example...


Never said he'd invented goblins.



Arcane said:


> ...The word orc it's self is Old English for Demon and he borrowed it because it fit the setting. Beowulf infact features this word, which leads back to my segment on Norse-Germanic myth/fantasy..


...except it doesn't, because it's pretty certainly derived from Ogre and ultimately from Orcus, a latin death-god. "Orc" in Beowulf (used 3 times I believe) is unexplained but seems to be more like a ghoul, some form of undead perhaps. So not an "Orc", and not Norse either.

Now if he'd called them Trolls you'd be on much safer ground both etymologically and mythologically. But then again, I wouldn't have claimed he'd 'created' trolls, would I?



Arcane said:


> ... As for conparisons with Howard, it cannot be acurately debated against since Howard published his first works in 1928, while The Hobbit was written in the early 30s and was not published until 1937. Infact, in an interview, Tolkien "indicated that he rather liked Howard's Conan stories."...


"Like" is not the same as "influence". I "like" Hendrix, I don't start every post with "Wha-wa-wu-wu, wha-wa-waaaaw, wha-wa-wu-wu - DANG! dagada-duurng!". My enjoyment has very little influence on my writing.

I asked if there was the _influence_ of Howard (and Borroughs, don't forget Borroughs) in Middle Earth. Is Bilbo a Conan-figure, do you think? Is Aragorn? Tuor? Hardly, as Tuor was conceived when *Howard was 10 years old*.

Tolkien was publishing a long time and started late, Howard wasn't and didn't. Doesn't change either of the things I said earlier; there's no sign of Howard's influence, and what became "the Silmarillion" was started in 1916, 12 years before Howard published anything. Ergo, the beginning was not influenced by Howard, and the later work he did shows no trace of influence either.

Honestly if you want fantasy precursers to Tolkien you'd better off, I feel, considering _The King of Elfland's Daughter_ and _The Princess and the Goblin_. Maybe even _Peter Pan_ while you're on, and then the work of HG Wells. Oh, and don't forget _Peter Rabbit_.



Arcane said:


> ... I will give you that Tolkien may have invented the genre of high fantasy, but fantasy in general existed in various forms far before him.


And I'll leave you with what I said originally. Notice the word "little". It means "not a lot of", not "none at all". And then notice I said "in Middle Earth". Not 'in 1920s Oxford or later in Leeds' or anything of the sort. I said "in Middle Earth". In other words, Tolkien's _work_ shows traces of _few_ (not no) other writers of _fantasy_ (not mythology).



Red Orc said:


> ... there's very little 'previous works of fantasy' in Middle Earth. There's a hell of a lot of _mythology_ though...


:scholastic cyclops:


----------



## lawrence96 (Sep 1, 2008)

Glenn said:


> The Emperor of Man is very much based on the Paul Atreides and his son the God Emperor of Dune Leto 2. Both Paul and Leto have the ability to see the future much like the Emperor in 40k.


did the God Emporer of dune have any other powers? for example is/was he immortal?

also just finished reading the whole quadrilogy of sten and found yet more similarities:

They have robots that do all the work called servitors
They have a Imperial Commisariat
There is an attempted assination/rebellion aginst the emporer which doesnt kill him but weakens him (in 40K he becomes physically crippled and nearly dead, in sten he becomes politically crippled), and this event leads to a massive war.
They have a PDF (no not an abode file silly)

while some of these might be rather common terms i think that coupled with the previous list there begins to be too many similarities to be completely accidental.

Also how the devil did we get on to where tolkien got his ideas from?


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Who inspired what when and all the rest.

Having looked at your lists I think you might be on to something.

I think there's too much similarity to be co-incidence. Perhaps it was one of the sources, along with Starship Troopers (that I somehow left out of my original evaluation, though I was mentioning them it on another thread), Aliens, Dune, Judge Dredd (etc) and of course the whole load of stuff they carted over from Warhammer (which derives substantially, as I've tried to show, from Tolkien, but also Lovecraft, Robert E Howard and Michael Moorcock, among others).

:clue-finding cyclops:

PS: I think by the end the God Emperor of Dune was immortal, but to be fair it's a long time since I read them.


----------



## safeinacell (Aug 27, 2008)

GW has always worn it's influences on it's sleave, personally I don't think it's really all that bad, after all this whole thing was started by fantasy fans, and it's nice to see that isn't totally forsaken in the quest for the bottom line.
Also I gotta give a shout out as to the Administratum abd the Adeptus Terra being lifted from Mervin Peake's Gormenghast books.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

The only difference between fantasy and mythology are dates. The only difference between mythology and religion is popularity. 

In another 1000 years we will all learn about the odd western people who believed in the mythical Jesus who could not be killed and wrestled with Satan himself, meanwhile we will all go to church to praise the great God Gandalf who's prophet, Tolkien, was tasked to creature the divine scripture known as The Lord of the Rings. 

As for the Elf and Eternal, I am having trouble finding the sources for that one, something I learned many years ago and forgot where. Suffice to say however that saying that Orcs are nothing like Trolls and Goblins, when the Hobbit says that Orcs are just bigger Goblins is like saying that Battlestar Galactica had no influence from Star Wars.


----------



## your master (Jun 14, 2008)

Arcane said:


> is like saying that Battlestar Galactica had no influence from Star Wars.



what a load of crap


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Arcane said:


> The only difference between fantasy and mythology are dates....


No, the difference is belief. Unless you think Tolkien really _believed_ he'd found a book containing the chronicles of the Hobbits. If so, I would keep it quiet, otherwise you might just be paying a visit to a mental institution.




Arcane said:


> ... The only difference between mythology and religion is popularity.
> 
> In another 1000 years we will all learn about the odd western people who believed in the mythical Jesus who could not be killed and wrestled with Satan himself, meanwhile we will all go to church to praise the great God Gandalf who's prophet, Tolkien, was tasked to creature the divine scripture known as The Lord of the Rings.
> 
> As for the Elf and Eternal, I am having trouble finding the sources for that one, something I learned many years ago and forgot where...


Pity. It was briefly interesting.



Arcane said:


> ...Suffice to say however that saying that Orcs are nothing like Trolls and Goblins..


...which I didn't...



Arcane said:


> ...when the Hobbit says that Orcs are just bigger Goblins is like saying that Battlestar Galactica had no influence from Star Wars.


...which I also didn't.

So, something I didn't say is like something else I didn't say? Cor, how surprising.

Let's recap:

you agree with me that many of Tolkien's inspirations were from mythology; you agree with me that few of his inspirations were from current fantasy; you agree that Tolkien invented the "High Fantasy genre"; and you agree that the "orcs" in Beowulf were not the same as the "orcs" in Middle Earth, though I have conceeded (because I think it is a good point) that orcs are _similar_ (though not identical) to Thrall-kin.

So, you agree on pretty much everything I've said so far, am I right?


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Now you are resulting to the method of putting words in someones mouth.  In court they call that leading a witness. 

Let's recap:

Tolkien did not make the word "Orc", he borrowed because it fit the idea of something evil and angry. He then took the idea of goblins and trolls, along with Thrall-kin and put them together to make a very similar but differently named race which even his own book (The Hobit) admits are identical to goblins except in that they are larger and stronger. Somehow though, you still think he came up with this idea on his own? Take an idea, make it bigger and stronger and give it a name you didn't even come up with, well... that is not original. 

Belief proves nothing. R.E. Howard _believed_ that Conan was real, infact, he believed that Conan visited him in ghostly form at night and told him the stories he wrote down. Was he crazy? Of course he was but he also believed in his work, yet it is still considered fantasy. 

The Iliad, Odyssey, Nibelungen (which was derived from Old Norse, not the otherway around as you claim), Niflung, and Edda are all forms of fantasy. Mythology and Fantasy are the same thing depending on who you ask and when. Literature did not exist when many of these ancient stories existed, hell, language barely did, so just because Tolkien wrote his in a book and these guys jotted it down on papyrus or told through skaldic tradition does not make it any different. Someone can also create a Genre but not actually come up with anything in it. H. G. Wells may have evolved Sci-Fi but he certaintly didn't create the idea of the space ship. 

So you are reading everything I have written right?


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Arcane said:


> Now you are resulting...


Do you mean "resorting"?



Arcane said:


> ... to the method of putting words in someones mouth.  In court they call that leading a witness...


And out of court they call it cutting through the bullshit.

_You_ "called me" on my posts. You then proceeded to agree with more than 80% of what I'd written. Now, really, what's your beef?



Arcane said:


> ...
> Let's recap:
> 
> Tolkien did not make the word "Orc", he borrowed because it fit the idea of something evil and angry...


Didn't say he had invented the _word_ "orc", I said he'd invented "orcs".




Arcane said:


> ... He then took the idea of goblins and trolls, along with Thrall-kin and put them together to make a very similar but differently named race which even his own book (The Hobit) admits are identical to goblins except in that they are larger and stronger...


Wait, they're identical to goblins, but they're also somehow the same as trolls and Thrall-kin? And named after demonic evil angry beings?



Arcane said:


> ...Somehow though, you still think he came up with this idea on his own?


Didn't say that. I'm happy for goblins and trolls and Thrall-kin (and ogres) to have influenced his thinking, and for him to have found the term "orc" and put them all together with his particular touch of love for machines and wheels, and for that combination ('aspects of a thing, plus aspects of a second thing, with aspects of a third thing, with aspects of a fourth thing, with the name of a fifth thing, plus an original conception of your own'), to be labelled 'creating'.




Arcane said:


> ...Take an idea, make it bigger and stronger and give it a name you didn't even come up with...


I'm sorry, is this an instruction? 



Arcane said:


> ... well... that is not original.
> 
> Belief proves nothing. R.E. Howard _believed_ that Conan was real, infact, he believed that Conan visited him in ghostly form at night and told him the stories he wrote down. Was he crazy? Of course he was but he also believed in his work, yet it is still considered fantasy...


But not, apparently, by him. 



Arcane said:


> ... The Iliad, Odyssey..


...which were believed to be true in the Ancient World, and are therefore _mythology_, unlike say the Comedies of Terence, which were known to be fictional and are therefore fantasy (which may, just possibly, be why no-one ever tried to build a religion on the comedies of Terence...)...



Arcane said:


> ...Nibelungen (which was derived from Old Norse, not the otherway around as you claim),


Quite wrong. It is derived, ultimately, from the _Lex Burgundionum_, a chronicle of the Burgundian kings of Worms (in western Germany, on the Rhine in fact), and relates to their destruction at the hands of the Huns. The legends of Siegfreid derives from the Rhineland. One is based on historical events of the 5th century, and the other is known to have existed long before (several centuries in fact) the earliest known Norse versions; there is also a (confused) reference in Beowulf, approximately 300 years before the earliest known Norse version (the _Brot_ of around 1100AD).



Arcane said:


> ...
> Niflung, and Edda are all forms of fantasy. Mythology and Fantasy are the same thing depending on who you ask and when...


No, really they're not. Howard may have believed in the literal truth of his work, but Tolkien's was fantasy; imaginitive fiction. Mythology is believed to be true. You may not think that mythology and religion are true, but a hell of a lot of other people do. Even as an atheist, I wouldn't say other people's religion is fiction.



Arcane said:


> ... Literature did not exist when many of these ancient stories existed...


That doesn't even make _sense_. How can we read their works if they had no literature?



Arcane said:


> ... hell, language barely did, ...


Are you at all serious, or do you just type the first thing that comes into your head? Have you actually _read_ any of the things you're talking about? "language barely existed and literature did not"? How exactly were the Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible, the Law Codes of Hamurabi, the Poetic and Prose Eddas, Beowulf, the Tain bo Cuilnge, the Rig-Veda and all the rest 1 - written without writing and 2 - composed without language? It's just preposterous that you even make that argument.



Arcane said:


> ...so just because Tolkien wrote his in a book and these guys jotted it down on papyrus or told through skaldic tradition does not make it any different...


So Tolkien writing a book at a time when we have writing and language is the same as someone else not writing a book without language? Get a grip of your argument, really. Either, the previous works of mythology were conscious excercises in poetic imagintion, a la Tolkien, _or_ they were attempts to contextualise philosphy (of self, community, kingship, godhood etc) in story that were believed to be true. But they weren't _both_.



Arcane said:


> ... Someone can also create a Genre but not actually come up with anything in it. H. G. Wells may have evolved Sci-Fi but he certaintly didn't create the idea of the space ship...


Create-evolve... different things there. But you can create a genre without being the first to do it. A genre is a class or category. You can't have a genre with only thing in it. There is no genre of art that includes only one example, because by its nature a genre - hence the name - must be 'general'. 



Arcane said:


> ... So you are reading everything I have written right?


You tell me. You're the one that thinks there's no difference between fiction and what is believed to be true, so it's difficult for me to tell what _you_ think you're doing.


----------



## Winst0n (Mar 12, 2009)

i showed a friend 40k and after seeing the nids and space marines he says 
" so basically they steal from others company's because nids. look like ZERG and space marines are a knock off of master chief."


i lol'd all over the place at the master chief one. 

I guess the tau are knock offs of the elites and kroot are just wimpy brutes right?


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Red Orc said:


> Do you mean "resorting"? And out of court they call it cutting through the bullshit.


Then I shall cut through the bullshit and say, if you have lost an arguement, please do not fall to picking apart peoples grammar and word usage. That is just insulting to yourself. 



Red Orc said:


> _You_ "called me" on my posts. You then proceeded to agree with more than 80% of what I'd written. Now, really, what's your beef?


Again, I don't agree with you, and you are leading my statements. To repeat myself, if you have nothing more to add, you are simply insulting yourself. 



Red Orc said:


> Didn't say he had invented the _word_ "orc", I said he'd invented "orcs".Wait, they're identical to goblins, but they're also somehow the same as trolls and Thrall-kin? And named after demonic evil angry beings?Didn't say that. I'm happy for goblins and trolls and Thrall-kin (and ogres) to have influenced his thinking, and for him to have found the term "orc" and put them all together with his particular touch of love for machines and wheels, and for that combination ('aspects of a thing, plus aspects of a second thing, with aspects of a third thing, with aspects of a fourth thing, with the name of a fifth thing, plus an original conception of your own'), to be labelled 'creating'.


Creating something is coming up with a genuinely original idea, implementing it in a suitable field, be that writing, music or invention, and using craft to bring it into form. Taking a pre-existing idea, with a pre-existing name and adding it into your own works is not creating. Again, did H.G. Wells invent alien invasions? No, like Tolkien he simply took an existing idea, gave it a new and impressive face and wrote something very interesting with it. 



Red Orc said:


> I'm sorry, is this an instruction?


Please refer to the first paragraph of this post :victory:



Red Orc said:


> ...which were believed to be true in the Ancient World, and are therefore _mythology_, unlike say the Comedies of Terence, which were known to be fictional and are therefore fantasy (which may, just possibly, be why no-one ever tried to build a religion on the comedies of Terence...)...


One man's mythology is another man's fiction, which is easy to understand, unless of course you lack the ability of perspective. 



Red Orc said:


> No, really they're not. Howard may have believed in the literal truth of his work, but Tolkien's was fantasy; imaginitive fiction. Mythology is believed to be true. You may not think that mythology and religion are true, but a hell of a lot of other people do. Even as an atheist, I wouldn't say other people's religion is fiction.


I would. I know many people that believe wholeheartedly in dragon's having existed or in Vampires being real. Is that to mean they are part of a mythology. Or are you going to tell me that if anyone believes in a written work, it makes it "true", as per your skewed definition as religion or mythology. 



Red Orc said:


> That doesn't even make _sense_. How can we read their works if they had no literature?Are you at all serious, or do you just type the first thing that comes into your head? Have you actually _read_ any of the things you're talking about? "language barely existed and literature did not"? How exactly were the Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible, the Law Codes of Hamurabi, the Poetic and Prose Eddas, Beowulf, the Tain bo Cuilnge, the Rig-Veda and all the rest 1 - written without writing and 2 - composed without language? It's just preposterous that you even make that argument.


Are you at all familiar with oral traditions or perhaps prose or skaldic tales? It would seem not, but I shall elaborate for your understanding. The development of literature, in the written form was not how many of these stories were told. Infact, most people would not be able to read them anyways so they were told through word of mouth. Of course, you could choose to include mosaics, runic inscriptions and hieroglyph as literature, but many do not.



Red Orc said:


> Create-evolve... different things there. But you can create a genre without being the first to do it. A genre is a class or category. You can't have a genre with only thing in it. There is no genre of art that includes only one example, because by its nature a genre - hence the name - must be 'general'. You tell me. You're the one that thinks there's no difference between fiction and what is believed to be true, so it's difficult for me to tell what _you_ think you're doing.


What is currently believed to be true was, at one time, fiction, as were all things at one time. That is the logical progression of theory to hypothesis to believed "fact". Our science fiction will one day be possibly, science fact. Perhaps you have no comprehension of this in our modern world, but that would again, attribute to the lack of perspective. 

At one time, it was believed that dragons were real and that trolls lived beneath bridges. The Romanians would tell you at one time (and many still) that Vampires were very real. Does that mean that all work on Vampires, trolls or dragons is Mythology? Of course not, because it requires perspective through time. 

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Tales of the Arabian Nights, Arthurian Legend, The Princess and the Goblin... please, refute all these as coming after The Hobbit and that they were not in fact fantasy. If you cannot, you have no further argument but to pick apart my statements and scrutinize my usage of the English language.

oke the eye from a cyclops and he has nothing to do but rage in futility:


----------



## Col. Schafer (Apr 15, 2008)

My head is spinning. Everywhere I turn red ork and XYZ person is dukeing it out. 

Theres not much I can add, but I do think that Starship Troopers was a huge inspiration on 40K. The mobile infantry used "powered armor" and droped in from orbit in via drop capsules. kind of a no brainer.


----------



## your master (Jun 14, 2008)

Winst0n said:


> i showed a friend 40k and after seeing the nids and space marines he says
> " so basically they steal from others company's because nids. look like ZERG and space marines are a knock off of master chief."
> 
> 
> ...


its the otherway round starcraft copied GW there was a huge legal battle and starcraft had to change some names


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Arcane said:


> ...
> Creating something is coming up with a genuinely original idea, implementing it in a suitable field, be that writing, music or invention, and using craft to bring it into form. Taking a pre-existing idea, with a pre-existing name and adding it into your own works is not creating. Again, did H.G. Wells invent alien invasions? No, like Tolkien he simply took an existing idea, gave it a new and impressive face and wrote something very interesting with it. ..


Well, we're actually disagreeing about something real there. I think that Tolkien did a lot more than that, you don't.



Arcane said:


> ...
> 
> One man's mythology is another man's fiction, which is easy to understand, unless of course you lack the ability of perspective...


But is either 'true'?



Arcane said:


> ... I know many people that believe wholeheartedly in dragon's having existed or in Vampires being real. Is that to mean they are part of a mythology. Or are you going to tell me that if anyone believes in a written work, it makes it "true", as per your skewed definition as religion or mythology...


I'm not responsible for you knowing nutters mate. Of course if people believe them they're part of mythology. If people don't believe them they're fiction. The same work can be believed by some people and not by others. Their subjective definitions will be different. Otherwise we would all believe the same things. really can't see what's "skewed" about that.



Arcane said:


> ...
> 
> Are you at all familiar with oral traditions...


... oral traditions, in languages that have only just been invented you mean? Of course I'm familiar with oral tradition. I was taking issue with your claims that things could be written before writing, and that language itself was only invented a couple of thousand years ago, which I think are proposterous.




Arcane said:


> ...
> 
> What is currently believed to be true was, at one time, fiction, as were all things at one time...


This doesn't make sense. Are you claiming that at one time, no-one believed anything?



Arcane said:


> ...
> That is the logical progression of theory to hypothesis to believed "fact". Our science fiction will one day be possibly, science fact. Perhaps you have no comprehension of this in our modern world, but that would again, attribute to the lack of perspective...


Now you're just being rude. Is it because you don't actually have a logical argument to present?



Arcane said:


> ... At one time, it was believed that dragons were real and that trolls lived beneath bridges. The Romanians would tell you at one time (and many still) that Vampires were very real. Does that mean that all work on Vampires, trolls or dragons is Mythology? Of course not, because it requires perspective through time...


No, it's real to people who believe it, like any other work of religion, and it's more or less not to those who don't. It's all a question of perspective.



Red Orc said:


> ...there's very little 'previous works of fantasy' in Middle Earth...


Why do you not understand what this means? You claim to be offended by my 'picking apart your words' and yet... without clarity of meaning any discussion just becomes noise.

Tolkien shows little (not no) inluence of earlier writers of fantasy - _imaginative fiction_. You can define mythology and fiction as being the same if you wish, but I doubt there's many literary critics, or historians, or theologians for that matter, who'd agree with you. "Fantasy" is not the same as "truth" no matter how peculiarly you chose to define words. Nor is "truth" the same as "fact", before you go off down that blind alley.

What is held to be true may objectively be false (the sun is objectively _not_ pushed around the Earth by a giant dungbeetle); but neither is it just made up for a laugh.



Red Orc said:


> ...
> Honestly if you want fantasy precursers to Tolkien you'd better off, I feel, considering _The King of Elfland's Daughter_ and _The Princess and the Goblin_. Maybe even _Peter Pan_ while you're on, and then the work of HG Wells. Oh, and don't forget _Peter Rabbit_...





Arcane said:


> ... A Midsummer Night's Dream, Tales of the Arabian Nights, Arthurian Legend, The Princess and the Goblin... please, refute all these as coming after The Hobbit and that they were not in fact fantasy. If you cannot, you have no further argument but to pick apart my statements and scrutinize my usage of the English language...


So, you admit there other works of fantasy before Tolkien then? Good, I said that 2 pages ago; in fact it was one of my points that you were objecting to.

However, you have yet to demonstrate that any of these other writers of fantasy (not mythology) have any influence on Tolkien. I even threw you the bone of _Peter Rabbit_ because you hadn't mentioned it to back up your case, it being one of the very few direct examples.

And I have already said I was talking about novels - A Midsummer Night's Dream is indeed a fantasy _play_. There are others. And I'm sure there were fantastic plays in Victorian and Edwardian England too. The comic operas of Gilbert and Sullivan for instance. But are you seriously suggesting that LotR is comperable in style and execution (belongs in the same '_genre_') as Shakeperian comedy?

The Arthurian Legends are not fantasy, however, as they're not imaginitive fiction; they are re-creation; and the Arabian Nights... _is_ fantasy, I'd say, but still containing strong elements of mythology. But the framing device of the 1001 Nights is a literary device that removes the tales from their original context. There are elements of re-creation and genuine fiction. In Tolkien, the element of re-creation is less than the 1001 Nights. There are _elements_ from Norse, Arthurian and Carolingian stories; but few straight retellings.

Anyway; as you've already agreed with more than 80% of what I've written, and as I've agreed with some of what you've written (I think the point about the Thrall-kin was well-made, though you invest it with more significance than I do), and you just seem to be manufacturing disagreements and then triumphantly pulling out killer points that _I already made 2 pages ago_, I really have no interest in continuing this any further.


----------



## zas240 (Apr 3, 2009)

the fall of Lucifer (from the bible) the most powerfull of the ark angels turned into the devil.Is it just me or does that sound like Horus. For those who dont know the ark angels were rumourd to be Gods sons. just me or are they like primarches


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Red Orc said:


> Well, we're actually disagreeing about something real there. I think that Tolkien did a lot more than that, you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Either do I since it has been, undisputedly proven that Tolkien did not "invent" orcs, nor elves, nor the fantasy genre since you yourself admit they are based on previous things and there were many, many works of fantasy far before him. 

Good day sir.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

40K is based on tons of different material from all over the place, from Tolkien to Ridley Scott, Conan to the Bible.
In the early days it was easier to spot the references, Space Hulk was blatantly based on Aliens and the initial races were lifted straight from LOTR (via Warhammer Fantasy)
I remember reading somewhere that the Old world was directly influenced by Middle Earth, but being as Warhammer was written by a load metal heads from the midlands they redefined and reworked Tolkien's material into what became known as "grubby fantasy". 
D&D was another massive influence, they used a lot religious material in their early works (incurring the wrath of many Christian groups in the process). 
What separates 40k from it's influences is it's dark and desperate feeling but even that can be traced back to books like Call of Cthulhu or Pit and the Pendulum (I would have listed the authors but I've only just woken up and my head's not really working properly!)

What makes 40k unique is how they have mixed all the different ingredients together, each component, if taken individually, is easily traced. But all together they combine to make 40k the amazing setting that it is.

@ Arcane. Vampires, dragons, demons and elves all have a place in mythology, they have all been believed in at some time or another. They become fantasy when they are taken out of their original context and are applied in a completely fictional way.
Whether you believe in vampires or not Interview with the Vampire is a work of fantasy, it makes no attempt to convince the reader that it is an account of real events.
On the other hand, accounts of the strange vampire monkey thing in South America that attacks goats in the night would be considered mythology as the villagers certainly believe it to be true.
The same could be said of zombies, to the Haitians they are all too real, but to the rest of us they are just monsters in Dawn of the Dead.


----------

