1

I know that it means "run for your lives", but why would running to the hills be a good idea to hide? Aren't the hills the easiest place for the enemy to spot the peasants/people who "run for the hills" or "run to the hills"?

Why isn't the saying:

Run and hide in the forest!

Or even:

Run and hide!

?

8
  • 2
    Sound advice if there's a tsunami warning. May 3, 2020 at 17:59
  • 1
    They did not have aeroplanes or spy satellites in the days when that phrase was coined. You could hide in the hills but not on the plains, where you can be see from... hills. May 3, 2020 at 18:03
  • 3
    A hundred men could search the hills for weeks without find a person in hiding. But a hundred men spead out 100 metres apart on the plain would find anybody. May 3, 2020 at 18:07
  • 1
    Most places have no forest. True, many places also have no hills and don't you think there's a huge difference between "many" and "most"? Did you notice how many documentary or fictional movies about the military tell their heroes: "Take the high ground"? If your primitive society was threatened by people or by nature, why would the hills not be the best place to which to flee? May 3, 2020 at 18:09
  • 1
    If you're defending territory, it's usually better to be on high ground.
    – alphabet
    Jan 30 at 2:40

2 Answers 2

2

I know that it means "run for your lives",

No, it means "run to a place of safety"

but why would running to the hills be a good idea to hide?

This is more a question about tactics than a language question.

Aren't the hills the easiest place for the enemy to spot the peasants/people who "run for the hills" or "run to the hills"?

Th earliest reference I can find is to a fox-hunt in England (RS Surtees "Ask Mamma" 1858) in which, of the fox, we have: “He’s for the hills!” exclaims Gameboy Green, still struggling on with a somewhat worse-for-wear looking steed."

And from Allen's Indian Mail and Register of Intelligence..., Volume 15 p314 --

May 19th 1857: After a sharp fire of about twenty minutes, the pirates began to jump overboard, and run for the hills, when the boats dashed in and boarded them.

In both cases, chasing something up hills is not easy. The thing/person being chased has the advantage of height. Also for humans, hills are more defensible.

Also, back then, the hilly areas were vast and sparsely populated and a good place to hide.

There is nothing to say that the hills did not have tree cover on them.

I think earlier references tend to be literal but the drama of the command was enough to take it into its more metaphorical meaning - although the two are often difficult to distinguish.

-1

This phrase actually originated in 1889 in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, when a dam burst causing one of the deadliest floods in US history. The warning to “run for the hills” was to try to get people out of the path of the flood, which naturally followed the valley.

3
  • 3
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please edit to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Oct 15, 2022 at 5:47
  • 1
    I haven't found any reliable sources for this; this certainly sounds like a false etymology.
    – alphabet
    Jan 30 at 2:43
  • This appears to be incorrect. Allen's Indian Mail and Register of Intelligence..., Volume 15 p314 -- May 19th 1857: After a sharp fire of about twenty minutes, the pirates began to jump overboard, and run for the hills, when the boats dashed in and boarded them. --books.google.co.uk/…
    – Greybeard
    Jan 30 at 23:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.