Enemies

[davem]

So, I'm reading a collection of Kipling's short stories (I'd only been familiar with this writer through his children's 'Fairy' novels, Puck of Pook's Hill & Rewards & Fairies up till now, so I was unfamiliar with his reputation of 'right wing, proto-Fascist celebrator of the British Empire'). Being very impressed with the stories I today picked up a volume of his Collected Poems, & in the Introduction came across an interesting passage about one of the Barrack Room Ballads:

’E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An’, before we know, ’e’s ’ackin’ at our ’ead;
’E’s all ’ot sand an’ ginger when alive,
An’ ’e’s generally shammin’ when ’e’s dead.
’E’s a daisy, ’e’s a ducky, ’e’s a lamb!
’E’s a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
’E’s the on’y thing that doesn’t give a d**n
For a Regiment o’ British Infantree!

The marks of non-standard diction would suggest some kind of realism. It is true that a certain appreciation of a worthy opponent can be found, in favourable circumstances, among British & other soldiers, & there is a respectable tradition behind the speaker's sense of proffessional duty to give praise where praise is duue - especially tp opponents whose own military organisations do not adequately provide for public recognition & commemoration of exceptional valour.

’E ’asn’t got no papers of ’is own,
’E ’asn’t got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill ’e’s shown
In usin’ of ’is long two-’anded swords (RT Jones: Collected Poems of Rudyard Kipling)

Now, the poem itself is difficult reading in some ways - (you can read it here (http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/volumeXI/fuzzywuzzy.html) - but the poem is not the point of this thread. It was the point the writer made about the respect shown for the enemy - he may be an 'eathen, but by his reckless courage he broke the British Square (infantry formation in battle) & his courage was therefore deserving of both respect & commemoration.

It struck me very forcibly that the enemies encountered by the heroes in Tolkien's work are never shown as deserving of respect - the heroes never face a brave, heroic enemy who is deserving of respect for his courage & resourcefulness & self sacrifice. The enemies are cowardly, win by cheating (either overwhelming numbers or magic or trickery).

Ok, you say, the enemies are in the service of absolute evil & we shouldn't expect them to be portrayed as in any way heroic. Yet, the reality of our world is different. In wartime there are heroes & villains on both sides. I note that when Tolkien first began writing his tales & developing his languages during WWI the Germans were associated with words in Qenya (sic) for monsters & demons, but soon, even during the conflict, this changed.

So, Tolkien's heroes never face an enemy they can respect as a 'worthy opponent'. This , of course, plays up the 'good' vs 'evil' dimension, but what does effect does it have on the heroes themselves - does this constant battle against oppenents who are cruel, vicious, vindictive & evil affect the way they think of themselves? If the enemy they faced was a worthy opponent, with right (to some degree) on their own side, would this make the fight they fought both more 'honourable' & more tragic?

All through the ages of Arda the enemy the heroes face is literally 'vermin' to be eradicated.

Actually, thinking about it, the closest we come is Sam's speculation about the Southron - yet we are never told that Sam is right in his speculation.

So, enemies, & the effect the type of enemy he faces has on the hero. Would the story affect us in the same way if it was a case of two sides, both of whom are to some degree in the right, & would such a war affect the heroes - make them more doubtful of the morality of their actions?

We're told often that the Legendarium is a War Story - yet to what extent does it truly reflect war in our world - & more personally, how does it affect our perception of war generally? Are we lead down the dangerous road of thinking (even subconsciously) of our 'enemies' as Orcs, rather than as (whatever the rights & wrongs of their cause) 'heroes' in their own way, whose reckless courage may 'break the British Square' & is deserving of acknowledgement for that (if for that alone).

So, lots of questions there. Any thoughts?

[Sir Kohran]

During ROTK, aren't we told that the Southrons proudly fought to the death? They sound like 'respectable opponents', especially when one considers the cowardice of the Orcs in fleeing. Also, if they had been truly evil, then Aragorn could never had made peace with them after the war. Of ocurse, then we get a different problem - the Southrons aren't really evil - they are essentially forced to fight for Sauron. I get the impression that had they been situated nearer Gondor, they would have fought with them, instead of Sauron.

So yes, it does seem impossible to rectify the 'worthy opponent' with the selfish, crude scum that serve Sauron. Anyone else got any thoughts?

[Mithalwen]

I often think about this and it surely deeply linked with the nature of orcs and the problems that create. Killing an orc is regarded on the level of swatting a fly - less even since surely having a game in which you competed to kill the most flies would be regarded as a little tasteless. Yet somewhere I seem to remember there is a conversation between a couple of orcs about what they would like to do when the war is over which humanises them a little...

[The 1,000 Reader]

In Middle-Earth, it is the slimy, cowardly figures who cause all of the problems in the world, which is why there is no worthy opponent for the men, elves, and dwarves to fight. Orcs are disgusting things that kill each other for a shirt. The men of Harad and Rhun were convinced that Sauron was a Eru-esque god and were twisted over the ages. Therefore, Middle-Earth was far more black and white than any place, despite Gandalf's philisophical words.

[davem]

Of course - Tolkien sets up a situation where the 'bad' guys are (in most cases) irredeemably 'BAD', or deluded by Sauron. The Uruks who attack Helm's Deep are accused of 'reckless hate', not 'reckless courage'. And perhaps this is why the siege of HD fails to rise to the heights of the siege of Troy - there is no bitter & terrible conflict of Achilles & Hector. Aragorn wins, but he, & the rest of the heroes (& this is a central point, so I'll seperate it out)

have no need to feel remorse - yet it is his remorse that humanises Achilles & makes him a tragic hero rather than merely a 'superhero'. No-one ever questions the morality of the fight - because Tolkien has given us an 'easy (in the moral sense) war. Of course in such a war no-one on the 'good' side will question the morality of their actions - or even the necessity of slaughtering dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of the enemy, because the enemy deserve it, & there is nothing good to say of them. One cannot even respect their courage in defence of a wrong cause, because they are all cowards.

Does this situation actually reduce the heroes to a little more than Rent-o-kill operatives & make them a little less than fully human - they can slaughter without thought or necessity for remorse - Aragorn will never have to sit while the father of an Orc pleads to be allowed to retrieve the body of the son Aragorn hacked to pieces on the Pelennor, & Eomer will never have to choose whether or not to allow an Orc's sister to retrieve the head he stuck on a pole for proper burial.

So, our heroes can slay the enemy & never have to face the consequences of having taken a life - if only because the lives they take are not worth counting. There is no real horror or ugliness in the killing, & there is, one could argue, no moral or ethical growth in the characters because there is no necessity to question what one has done.

Yet, Tolkien had seen real war, seen real human beings riddled with bullet holes & blown apart (who knows if he himself had taken a life (or many lives)). The more I consider this the more it intrigues me.

[Raynor]

yet it is his remorse that humanises Achilles & makes him a tragic hero rather than merely a 'superhero'.Although I really liked Achilles' story, it is nowhere near impressive as the task that Aragorn takes: the most gifted of all the living Men, going to almost certain death, so as to give humanity, what am I saying, life a second chance. Compare this to going to war to get back a wife, as a general reason, and most likely glory for himself, as was trendy among the "high heroes" of the day.

[davem]

Although I really liked Achilles' story, it is nowhere near impressive as the task that Aragorn takes: the most gifted of all the living Men, going to almost certain death, so as to give humanity, what am I saying, life a second chance. Compare this to going to war to get back a wife, as a general reason, and most likely glory for himself, as was trendy among the "high heroes" of the day.

Of course - & I'm not questioning that. I'm asking about the nature of the enemies he faces. In comparing the heroes Tolkien gives with the ones Homer presents us with I'm not comparing the causes for which they fight, but the effect of the fight on them. I still think the point I made stands - Aragorn & the rest never have to question the morality of the killing they do. Their enemies are not deserving of any respect. It seems to me that while the cause for which Tolkien's heroes fight is beyond question, what they have to do to achieve it doesn't require them to ask the deep questions Homer's heroes do. Which is possibly why Homer's work has a greater air of tragedy, because it is humans slaying humans, & the sin of Cain never arises.....

EDIT

Actually, we do have such a tragedy now I think about it - the Kinslaying - the only example that leaps out to me at the moment... And there Tolkien does seem to touch the Homeric heights: and yet while it echoes down the ages, it is not really dealt with in an Achilles-Priam confrontation.....

[Raynor]

I wouldn't say that Men never fight Men, nor that these mannish enemies are always unredeemably corrupt. Some of the inhabitants of Umbar used to be numenoreans too.

Beside this, another level of drama we witness in Tolkien is that of the deceptions of the Enemy which turn humans against each other or at least against good causes - whether this the lies of Melkor/Sauron turning elves against the valar, men against elves, men against men, men to almost side with Saruman, etc. It seems that these lies are one of the most enduring weapons of evil, with some of the most tragic effects too.

Edit: I also remembered this interesting passage from Myths Transformed, which may be relevant:
...though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, [orcs] must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.* This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

* Few Orcs ever did so in the Elder Days, and at no time would any Orc treat with any Elf. For one thing Morgoth had achieved was to convince the Orcs beyond refutation that the Elves were crueller than themselves, taking captives only for 'amusement', or to eat them (as the Orcs would do at need).

[Raynor]

Actually, we do have such a tragedy now I think about it - the Kinslaying - the only example that leaps out to me at the moment... And there Tolkien does seem to touch the Homeric heights: and yet while it echoes down the ages, it is not really dealt with in an Achilles-Priam confrontation.....There is also the kin-strife; or all the back-stabbing during the wars against Morgoth. We also have marred heroes, Turin or Hurin, who bring about evil. Turin can compete with Achilles on tragedy grounds, hands down... Another prime example of tragical friendly fire is Feanor; he almost rivals at times with Melkor in bringing about evil. The demonised heroes chain continues with his sons all the way to the end of the first age. While Tolkien doesn't make enemies more "humane", he sure does allow the full spectrum to be displayed on the good side.

[Sir Kohran]

Yet, Tolkien had seen real war, seen real human beings riddled with bullet holes & blown apart (who knows if he himself had taken a life (or many lives)).

Yet he was disgusted by it. Tolkien hated 'real war'. He hated the slaughter of men; the waste of young life; the indiscriminate killing, the spilling of fresh blood; the mutilated corpses, the rats in the trenches; the madness of the destruction; the lack of reasoning for any of it. Real war is almost by definition a terrible war.

And at the same time, the German soldiers he and his fellow Britons were fighting against were in exactly the same position - real suffering humans, not Orcs cackling at the thought of murder. They were young men just like himself, with their own hopes and fears, their own losses in the trenches; their own desparation. They showed the same qualities and bravery that Tolkien and his own men believed in. They were, essentially, the worthy opponents davem has described.

So when Tolkien was creating his own war, he wanted a 'good' war - a war with clear objectives; fought for the right reasons; clear-cut heroes that knew what they had to do; brave actions everywhere; leaders that struggled alongside their comrades; men fighting and even dying for a better future. But none of this could work if the enemy were equal, 'worthy' opponents - if Aragorn had to kill Orcs weeping for their mothers, whilst archers mowed down desperate, helpless enemies in their thousands, as wounded, moaning half-Orcs were executed out of pity by the Rohirrim, as Legolas found a diary on an Uruk's decapitated body, and Gimli found a wedding ring on a Troll he hacked apart, then the war would lose all sense of 'goodness' - it would just be a fantasized version of the real war Tolkien hated so much.

So Tolkien gave it a more controversial spin - he made the enemies not just opposing forces but actual bad guys, who enjoyed killing and burning and were grotesque parodies of the heroes he idolized. It was acceptable to kill these monsters because it was right to - they were evil, malicious beasts who invaded innocent and normally peaceful people. Tolkien wanted to show that some wars were right - and also that wars should only happen when there is a good reason to - in this case, to bring down the evil, dominating Sauron. Otherwise, Gondorians and Rohirrim and British and Germans should all live happily in peace.

But wait! - there is an anomaly. What of the Southrons, the humans who were forced to march far from their homes and families to fight on a foreign field for a lord they maybe feared or even hated, and yet even then still made an honourable show of themselves, going down fighting? They sound exactly like the Germans of the real world, and Sam's bitter and sad thoughts on the slain Southron are all the more relevant and tragic because of it. To me, they repesent the Germans - the worthy opponents that should not really be suffering; that were going through the same torment as the 'good' soldiers. Tolkien was showing that even his 'idealized' war wasn't perfect - that no matter how right and justifiable any conflict is, it is still a conflict and so people on both sides will suffer, and that is the true tragedy of war.

[Lalwendë]

I believe there are a few instances where Tolkien himself questions how he has portrayed the slaughter of the Orcs in his Letters, and he did a few revisions over the matter. I often feel that his inclusion of the friendly conversation between the two Orcs at Cirith Ungol was possibly an attempt by him to 'humanise' them a little, in contrast to all this bloodthirsty 'hacking and slashing' he was writing about. In regard to enemies who were Men, there is also the instance where Aragorn requests that the slain Dunlendings are buried appropriately and with respect following the Battle of Helms Deep.

So it's not all black and white.

But yes, there is immense slaughter of Orcs and no, they are not described as being particularly skilled or respected fighters/opponents (despite them clearly being more advanced in warfare, having knowledge of ballistics and rudimentary bombs - although maybe this is portrayed as a 'bad thing' by Tolkien?).

Why? One reason is that as a writer creating huge epic battles Tolkien was inevitably going to have to write about lots of death, and death involving the enemy, and he was also going to have to justify that slaughter to his readers. Tolkien was not stupid, and he knew about war. He was in a war that became widely questioned on whether it was 'moral', he wrote LotR at the time when Dresden happened, when Hiroshima & Nagasaki happened. He knew his readers would inevitably question widespread slaughter. This may explain why his Orcs are so often protrayed as one-dimensional characters, mere evil beings with a blood lust. They are almost like pantomime villains we can sit and go "Boo! Hiss!" at. In order to justify what he writes about, he has to make these Orcs seem as bad as is possible - thoroughly inhuman, even going beyond real life 'enemies' we have known in war and tyranny. That's why the Orcs are never given any 'respect' - it has to be that way or us modern readers wouldn't accept it.

Another reason is that Tolkien is writing about the heat of war. And this is not modern war. In modern war, under the Geneva convention, an army simply cannot do unspeakable things to the dead, the wounded, the captured (well, they do, but the media and the UN will have them over hot coals quite rightly). In older wars, torture and bloodthirsty slaughter was often the norm; I'm thinking here of the mythical zeal and fervour of renowned armies such as those of Boudicca or the viking raiders, for whom death would only be a reward (which brings to mind the attitude of the Rohirrim in battle) and who were able to enter into states of frenzy during battle. But even in modern times, armies don't sit there thinking of the enemy forces as being all cuddly! A certain amount of 'whipping up' is carried out, some propaganda, some team spirit about winning over this enemy. Maybe this is an inevitability as we are reading about one side only in this war of Tolkien's? We only see the enemy as they see them? Note that the instance where we hear the Orcs chatting in a friendly way is overheard by Frodo and Sam, well out of the heat of war; they have no reason to be whipped into an Orc-hating frenzy.

[davem]

Of course, Sir Kohran makes a valid point about the kind of war Tolkien portrayed. Yet it means that we never see the enemies praised for their heroics, or hear songs made commemorating them. And, as I said, the heroes never have to face the consequences of the slaughter they inflict.

So, do the heroes get off easy - of course they put their lives on the line - but they never (from a Christian perspective) endanger their immortal souls - everyone they kill deserves it, & they enemies are, as I say, cowards for whom the reader can feel no sympathy?

One cannot see the M-e equivalent of a Kipling producing a song praising the courage of the enemy - which, in a way, lessens the 'heroics' of the heroes, & reduces the tragedy of the outcome, because there are no tragic heroes among the fallen to be mourned either by the heroes or the reader. Even the human enemies we have in LotR are mentioned only in passing (the Southrons & Easterlings may go down fighting couragously, but this only confirms their delusion - no enemy fights couragously for his side because he believes it is right unless he is deluded).

There is no mutual respect - which is something we do find among warriors in many conflicts - mutual suffering leads to a kind of empathy & respect for a fellow warrior. As I say, we find this in Homer (& in the Mahabharata come to that). Yet it is absent from Tolkien from what I can see. And so far, no-one has addressed the question of whether this 'lessens' the heroes, in that they never have to face any difficult moral questions regarding the rightness of the cause - or at least the rightness of their actions.

So, was Tolkien copping out?

EDIT

And the other thing:

’E ’asn’t got no papers of ’is own,
’E ’asn’t got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill ’e’s shown
In usin’ of ’is long two-’anded swords

The other 'obligation, if you will - the necessity to record the courage of the enemy in situations where his own people will not or cannot- who will record the heroism of the Southrons & Easterlings - even if it was for the wrong cause?

[The 1,000 Reader]

As for the orcs of Cirith Ungol you speak of, especially Gorbag and Shagrat...



They killed themselves brutally over a shirt. A freakin' shirt. They aren't as normal and human as you'd think.

[Raynor]

One cannot see the M-e equivalent of a Kipling producing a song praising the courage of the enemy - which, in a way, lessens the 'heroics' of the heroes, & reduces the tragedy of the outcome, because there are no tragic heroes among the fallen to be mourned either by the heroes or the reader.It depends who the enemy is. You reffered to the kin-slaying; there is also the burning of ships at Losgar and "few of the deeds of the Noldor thereafter surpassed that desperate crossing [of Helcaraxe] in hardihood or woe. And still, there were songs about Feanor and his courrage. We also have the guards who Beregond slays; true, it is for a good cause, but it is a dire action, which prompts Aragorn, to an extent, to bannish him from the city. There is also an interesting remark by Tolkien concerning dramatisations who pictured willowman was in alliance with Mordor:
Cannot people imagine things hostile to men and hobbits who prey on them without being in league with the Devil!We shouldn't restrict our definition of enemies in M E only to those fighting under Sauron/Melkor. Some of them are among the good ranks, while others "in the middle", if I may say so.
the Southrons & Easterlings may go down fighting couragously, but this only confirms their delusion - no enemy fights couragously for his side because he believes it is right unless he is deludedI don't think they were figthing for any cause at that moment; it was a fight for their lives. It may have been a mistake to put them in that situation; some treaties on war recommend that an enemy should never be put in a situation without escape, or else he will fight fiercely (though, for the same reason, the Art of war recommends putting one's own soldier in that position).

[Hookbill the Goomba]

It seems to me that some enemies such as Orcs which are killed in such great numbers cannot be given any greatness else it would make the protagonists seem monstrous or something. Then there are some of the 'greater' enemies, such as Melkor, Sauron, Saruman etc...

Saruman especially. Gandalf and others admit that he is deserving of at least some respect, he was once great and good. But the terrible deeds he wrought seem to over shadow his once great nature and all his goodness is seen through the 'lens' if you will, of his later works. Again, look at Melkor, one of the 'great' of the Valar, we know of few good deeds he has done and only of some of the horrific things he did.

I think it is the ruthless nature and manner of the enemies that causes the lack of respect. In Peter Jackson's films, if I may be so bold as to use an example, at the Battle of Helm's Deep, Aragorn says words to the effect of 'Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none' and I think there may be a point here. As the Uruks are taking Merry and Pippin away, Legolas observes that they seem to delight in destroying all living things, even if they are not in their way.

Gandalf's treatment of Saruman in their confrontation at the end of The Two Towers, I think, indicates that there was still some respect, perhaps born out of fear. He tells them that his voice is still powerful and that they should not underestimate him. The Ents refuse to keep Saruman locked up, they hate to see any creature imprisoned but there is a sort of respect for him, at least that is the impression I got.

So... yes I think there is some respect for some of the enemies... but not a lot.

[Raynor]

Gandalf and others admit that he is deserving of at least some respect, he was once great and good. I would particulary note Frodo here:
Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me. And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it. As the Uruks are taking Merry and Pippin away, Legolas observes that they seem to delight in destroying all living things, even if they are not in their way. Unnecessary destruction of things, as a foremost evil activity of some boy bands, forces Borlas, a character in The New Shadow, to compare such perpetrators to orcs, who had similar delights.

[Lalwendë]

Hookbill, good example with Saruman there, and to that I'll also add the treatment and respect offered to the Mouth of Sauron.

But does this suggest that the leaders got respect whereas the foot soldiers did not? That's quite different in many ways to treatment of enemies in real life - my father told me the Italian and German PoWs brought over here to be interned and eventually to work (some worked under my grandfather), were treated very well; the leaders on the other hand faced the Nuremberg Trials and execution.

Or is it to do with race? Enemy Men seem to be well treated, even at times respected (e.g. Aragorn's request that the Dunlendings be properly buried) but enemy Orcs certainly do not.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Or is it to do with race? Enemy Men seem to be well treated, even at times respected (e.g. Aragorn's request that the Dunlendings be properly buried) but enemy Orcs certainly do not.

Still, at least in HoMe, Tolkien considers the possibility that orcs could ask for mercy and have it granted to them. The italics are mine.

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded. Morgoth's Ring, HoMe X, 419

Right now, we have an RPG going on in Rohan whose whole purpose is to consider the possibility that JRRT raised in the above quote concerning orcs. This is set in the Fourth Age. I am not sure what the outcome of that story will be, but my gut feeling is that there will be a softening of the image (ever so slightly) that Tolkien left us with.

That's probably because, like davem and some others, I have at least some questions about having a particular group portrayed in such stark terms, even if they are enemies. It just doesn't feel comfortable. I guess if someone gave me a group of creatures and said they were "demons" or some other supernatural horror, I could accept that. But if you tell me that these beings originally carried the blood of men or elves, even if corrupted, I have a hard time seeing things in such black and white terms. I guess I've come to the point where I can at least admit the possibility of a exception within my own mind. (Heresy, I know. :D )

[Raynor]

I would say that the best explanation for the treatment of the orcs is that the prevalent idea of their nature that Tolkien entertained during the writting of LotR is that they have no fea, and thus are mere beasts. The article Orcs from Myths Transformed is dated about 1959, although, true enough, in 1954 he considered them, in a letter to Peter Hastings, as a race of rational incarnate. Also, first-generation orcs, who were humans and became corrupted, would have a fea, unless being an orc means a separation of fea and hroa... Well, I know this theory has holes in it, but I think that it can best explain their treatment in the LotR.

[davem]

I don't disagree with the simple fact that Orcs are cowardly, vicious, cruel, verminous, & all the rest. Its the absence of noble enemies that intrigues me most. The heroes never face a noble opponent, are never faced with killing an 'equal'.

Or let's pursue Child's line - could there possibly have been 'brave', self-sacrificing Orcs? Or Dunlendings, Southrons, Easterlings? Men who fought heroically, laying down their lives for their comrades... they may have been on the wrong side, but their deeds proved worthy of a song? Or let's consider a combat between Aragorn & an Haradrim warrior on the Pelennor - one who goes down fighting, or one who puts himself between a group of Rohirrim & his Lord.

Or do the 'rules' of Tolkien's world make such a thing a logical impossibility? And how would we react? What about a f'rinstance - a young man from Harad is swept up by tales of war in the North West, his lord is going to fight for his Master (Sauron), & the young man swears an oath of service & rides off proudly to fight the 'evil' Gondorians. On the battlefield he comes face to face with Aragorn or Eomer, fights to defend his fallen lord & is slain.

Is that possible in Tolkien's world, or must Haradrim all be evil, stupid, deluded & of a kind who if they fight courageously it is only for their own survival? Can we imagine such a warrior as I've described - or would that 'break the rules'? And can we imagine that young man being mentioned with respect not, obviously, for the cause he fought for, but for his heroism in defence of one he loved? Can we imagine one of our heroes praising his courage, or the courage of his comrades for standing in the face of the Rohirrim's charge? Or maybe there were such courageous individuals among the enemy, but they were not 'mentioned in dispatches' by the Bards & so their heroism & self sacrifice were forgotten

And if we can't, if all the enemy are cowards, & the heroes are merely taking part in 'vermin control' does that in any way 'lessen' them?

[Mithalwen]

As for the orcs of Cirith Ungol you speak of, especially Gorbag and Shagrat...



They killed themselves brutally over a shirt. A freakin' shirt. They aren't as normal and human as you'd think.


A shirt of mithril mail worth "the price of the Shire" and more. Money is a pretty common motive for murder in the human world.....

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Hookbill, good example with Saruman there, and to that I'll also add the treatment and respect offered to the Mouth of Sauron.

Gandalf seems to have an amusing confrontation with The Mouth of Sauron and keeps bringing up the point of the 'rules of Mordor' as it were being different to elsewhere. The Mouth claims that he is an emissary and cannot be assailed and Gandalf retorts, "Where such laws hold, it is also custom for ambassadors to use less insolence." There seems to be a general acceptance that Mordor has been so corrupted that it is beyond respect, perhaps. Remember Gollum's reply to Sam saying, "It must be about tea time, at least in decent places where there is a tea time."
"We aren't in decent places!"

[Raynor]

I think that an issue mentioned in another thread is useful here too, the two different scales of morality mentioned by Tolkien in letter #246 in regards to judging Frodo: representing to ourselves the absolute ideal without compromise, and applying a scale tempered by mercy to others.

Concerning the second scale, the most relevant example is Gollum. Of him, the professor says in letter #181:
Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.Even concerning him, one of the greatest lessons of the story is that the heroes must show pity:
- He deserves death.

- Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it...My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least. Gandalf applies in an admirable way the second scale of morality to Gollum, he is tempered in his judgement by pity, just as Bilbo and Frodo are tempered in action by it, even when their lives (and quests) were in danger.

However, I doubt that either Frodo, Bilbo or Gandalf would have hesitated to confront Gollum to the end, if doing otherwise would have meant certain, immediate harm to someone. And I believe this was the case with many of the orcs or other enemies. One can't pacify them, not even at the cost of one's life; direct confrontation remains the only way on a battle field, if lives are to be saved.

[davem]

Something just occurred to me. I've been thinking about a couple of films - Braveheart & Zulu.

If we compare the way the 'enemy' is depicted in each film we see something very different. In Braveheart the enemy (the English) are two dimensional pantomine villains, & we never get the sense that they are real complex human beings. They are little better than Orcs. They exist in order to be killed & there is never any sense that they have feelings or that there is any tragedy in their deaths.

In Zulu on the other hand we encounter the Zulus before the British soldiers. We see the Zulus at a celebration & see them as human beings with a culture. Even during the battle of Rourke's Drift we never forget that they are people, & in one of the final scenes they are shown, as one of the Boer officers states 'saluting fellow braves'. The piled bodies of the Zulu warriors are viewed with horror by the British officers & one tells the other that he couldn't go through such a horror more than once.

The terrible nature of the slaughter is brought home in Zulu because we have seen that the Zulu warriors are human beings right from the start of the movie, whereas in Braveheart the slaughter of the English is seen as morally unquestionable, & killing the enemy is killing 'sub-humans'. Interestingly, I read that Gibson's Wallace was not shown killing the deer he is about to shoot because that might seem 'cruel' to an audience - because the deer was beautiful & 'innocent'.

Now, Tolkien's work seems to take a 'Braveheartian' approach to the enemy, rather than a 'Zulu-ian' one. And to me Zulu comes across as a more powerful & moving piece of work that Braveheart precisely because the British are shown killing human beings & being 'forced' to acknowledge the horror of what they have done - even though it was necessary for their own survival. The British acknowledge the horror of their act, & the Zulus salute them as 'fellow braves'. There is an acknowledgement of a shared humanity - even though they have been killing each other, each side seeking to wipe out the other. Braveheart ends with jubilation in slaughter inflicted, Zulu in horror at the same thing. The British troops feel tired & sick & are just glad its over.

Which brings up another question. History is not simply written by the winners, but in the main by the 'establishment', & one wonders whether the ordinary 'grunts' on the battlefield did feel a 'respect' for the enemy warriors (even perhaps for the Orcs) - one can't help thinking back to the football match across No-man's land in WWI between British & German troops - not that one could imagine such a thing happening in M-e. But could there have been instances of Gondorian Rangers giving a nodding respect to the 'reckless courage' of the foes they faced - they were the enemy, but they put up an awesome fight.

Or would that 'break the rules' in making the servants of the enemy in some degree 'respectable'? So, it seems that one aspect of war does not enter into Tolkien's work at any point - respect for 'fellow braves'. But Tolkien himself must have felt that - he does state, after all, that there were good & bad on both sides in WWI.

[The 1,000 Reader]

A shirt of mithril mail worth "the price of the Shire" and more. Money is a pretty common motive for murder in the human world.....

All valuables in Mordor go to Sauron, and Mordor has no economy anyway. Counting the fact that Sauron looted many dwarven citites (or at least Moria) dry, mithril was useless in Mordor. They killed themselves, everybody did, for one, useless shirt. In the end, orcs are just stupid and savage.

[Rhod the Red]

"mentioned by Tolkien in letter #246" Nevermind the letters, we're interested in the book. Letters for drafting are hardly good sources except ot look at background, which is not the topic.

[Raynor]

Nevermind the letters, we're interested in the book.May I ask who is "we" in the first place?

Anyway, is there anything in the "books" or anywhere else which contradicts or invalidates what Tolkien said there?

[Rhod the Red]

"May I ask who is "we" in the first place?"

Other posters in this board, logically.

"is there anything in the "books" or anywhere else which contradicts or invalidates what Tolkien said there?"

What you say, you're the one posting fiats on what the truth is about these significant parts of British literature

[Lalwendë]

All valuables in Mordor go to Sauron, and Mordor has no economy anyway. Counting the fact that Sauron looted many dwarven citites (or at least Moria) dry, mithril was useless in Mordor. They killed themselves, everybody did, for one, useless shirt. In the end, orcs are just stupid and savage.

Not really, as even if the shirt would go to Sauron, imagine the privilege that might be bestowed on you for taking him such a priceless item? And bear in mind that these Orcs were seen not long before discussing the possibility of retirement, of being far from battle and being independent of Sauron - bringing him a shirt like that might make that possibility very real.

That's probably because, like davem and some others, I have at least some questions about having a particular group portrayed in such stark terms, even if they are enemies. It just doesn't feel comfortable. I guess if someone gave me a group of creatures and said they were "demons" or some other supernatural horror, I could accept that. But if you tell me that these beings originally carried the blood of men or elves, even if corrupted, I have a hard time seeing things in such black and white terms. I guess I've come to the point where I can at least admit the possibility of a exception within my own mind. (Heresy, I know. )

I don't think Tolkien himself always saw them in black and white terms, especially given the incident mentioned above which he saw the need to insert into the text. So I still think its not quite as extreme as davem points out, yet they are given little respect as fighters and warriors. Not giving them respect in that way doesn't preclude us (or Tolkien) from offering some glimpses of compassion or understanding of them as people. I think what davem is bringing up could be down to the manner of their fighting - why would anyone respect an enemy fighter if that enemy fought 'dirty'? You see it in sport - the losing team/competitor is lauded if they play well, but if they cheat they are villified. Think about Maradona. Would he ever dare to enter England after the handball incident? perhaos it's that if the enemy is simply not 'sporting' then he loses all respect? And Tolkien was a sportsman, so that concept would ahve been importnat to him.

[davem]

But the question remains – what effect does the absence of a noble enemy have on Tolkien's heroes? Why did Tolkien omit the noble foe, the 'fellow brave', & if such figures had existed would we have had a different, more complex tale?

Does a hero need a noble foe in order to enhance his own nobility & the tragedy of his fate – does such a foe bring out his humanity?

In one of the Taliesin poems Charles Williams describes a fight to the death between Taliesin & King Cradlemas – a monstrous dictator. Taliesin kills Cradlemas in a fair fight & even though he had had no option – he was fighting for his life & to liberate Arthur's people, yet still Taliesin agonises over what he has done – Williams states 'He (Taliesin) & Cain had one immingled brain'. Taliesin has taken a life & has therefore 'sinned' – even if the cause was just. Tolkien's heroes never agonise in this way – of course, Turin regrets slaying an innocent man, & Frodo seeks to forbid the killing of Saruman, yet there is never any real sense that killing an enemy is morally questionable - & this is, it seems to me, because of the kind of enemies Tolkien provides his heroes with. Its ok to kill the enemy en masse, because the enemy is not noble or courageous. The hero never has to question the morality of what he is doing. Does this prevent his moral growth?

[Raynor]

Not really, as even if the shirt would go to Sauron, imagine the privilege that might be bestowed on you for taking him such a priceless item?I don't think that any orc could claim some special merit about the shirt, esspecially if said orc would own the shirt as a result of a fight, therefore disobedience. Moreover, it would look like only Shagrat was the one in touch with Lugburz, as he is the one who actually brings the shirt to Sauron (and is, well, slain, as quoted in the LotR Companion).
The hero never has to question the morality of what he is doing. Does this prevent his moral growth?Killing does affect one's status. In Quendi and Eldar, it is stated that:
And the Eldar deemed that the dealing of death, even when lawful or under necessity, diminished the power of healing, and that the virtue of the nissi in this matter was due rather to their abstaining from hunting or war than to any special power that went with their womanhood. Indeed in dire straits or desperate defence, the nissi fought valiantly, and there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals. On the other hand many elven-men were great healers and skilled in the lore of living bodies, though such men abstained from hunting, and went not to war until the last need. Healers have been persons of good, if not great, spiritual status in most cultures. Even in Middle Earth, we see Elrond, one of the highest standing elves, being a renowend healer. Aragorn, as arguable the most gifted Man, was a healer too (and the above quote is relevant for him esspecially, seeing he has elven blood). The least we can derrive from the above quote is that killing affects one's ability to heal, and if a special gift like healing is in fact a sign of one's spiritual status, then it follows that killing affects a person deeply.

[Rhod the Red]

Not really, as even if the shirt would go to Sauron, imagine the privilege that might be bestowed on you for taking him such a priceless item? And bear in mind that these Orcs were seen not long before discussing the possibility of retirement, of being far from battle and being independent of Sauron - bringing him a shirt like that might make that possibility very real.



I don't think Tolkien himself always saw them in black and white terms, especially given the incident mentioned above which he saw the need to insert into the text. So I still think its not quite as extreme as davem points out, yet they are given little respect as fighters and warriors. Not giving them respect in that way doesn't preclude us (or Tolkien) from offering some glimpses of compassion or understanding of them as people. I think what davem is bringing up could be down to the manner of their fighting - why would anyone respect an enemy fighter if that enemy fought 'dirty'? You see it in sport - the losing team/competitor is lauded if they play well, but if they cheat they are villified. Think about Maradona. Would he ever dare to enter England after the handball incident? perhaos it's that if the enemy is simply not 'sporting' then he loses all respect? And Tolkien was a sportsman, so that concept would ahve been importnat to him.


Thanks, very interesting!

[Lalwendë]

I don't think that any orc could claim some special merit about the shirt, esspecially if said orc would own the shirt as a result of a fight, therefore disobedience. Moreover, it would look like only Shagrat was the one in touch with Lugburz, as he is the one who actually brings the shirt to Sauron (and is, well, slain, as quoted in the LotR Companion).

Sauron wouldn't care for such matters if he got that particular trinket. And Orcs would not be above a little lying - maybe a tall tale about an almighty struggle would only add to the glory. ;) And even if Sauron did decide he was going to punish the "smug returning Orc with prize" for his disobedience, then that Orc wouldn't know that, he would assume he could easily get away with a small lie about something which happened in an out of the way corner of Mordor. Ultimately, Sauron wouldn't care:

And Orcs, they were useful slaves, but he had them in plenty. If now and again Shelob caught them to stay her appetite, she was welcome: he could spare them.

But that's not really part of this discussion. What I came here for was the following...

I thought I'd go back to The Choices of Master Samwise and that Orc chat to see what I could glean.

There's an interesting point about enemies and how they see one another:

And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. But don't forget: the enemies don't love us any more than they love Him, and if they get topsides on Him, we're done too.

These Orcs fully recognise that they are soldiers with a leader who is in control, but he is not in total control of them; they are not mindless 'slaves' as they are fully aware of their position and know of the possibility of independence. They even feel some resentment that it is them doing the fighting and not their leader (a common complaint amongst soldiers, and note how a leader who actively fights is all the more glorious and revered for it - in Tolkien's work you'll find: Aragorn, Eomer, Theoden. Outside: Sharpe, Nelson). Here Tolkien is showing us these enemy Orcs as being like any other soldier. He also shows us how the Orcs recognise that despite their feelings of resentment, they have to stay onside as their enemies will also show them no quarter; not only do they have to stay onside but they have to ensure that the 'boss' they resent will win the whole war. There's a message about War in that - if enemies cannot show some mercy to one another then it only serves to make them hate each other more and fight all the harder.

So then I was thinking about how the Orcs perceive their enemies, seeing as we're purely going on how the West see theirs, and we might find some illumination looking at it from the other perspective. Well we're lucky in that Tolkien tells us something of this in The Choices of Master Samwise:

"It's my guess you won't find much in that little fellow," said Gorbag. "He may have had nothing to do with the real mischief. The big fellow with the sharp sword doesn't seem to have thought him worth much anyhow--just left him lying: regular elvish trick."

Obviously they don't think highly of their enemy just as the West don't think highly of Sauron's forces, which is understandable. There's no equivalent of "Hug A Hoodie" in War. But this instance tells us that the Orcs believe the Elves to have a 'regular trick', i.e. typical behaviour. And that's to leave a fallen comrade when they have bigger goals to pursue. I wonder if there are any actual instances of this - the Elves are certainly not whiter than white. Even if Elves don't and never have done anything like this before, this is the perception of them that Orcs have.

So are the Orcs any better about fallen comrades?

D'you remember old Ufthak? We lost him for days. Then we found him in a corner; hanging up he was, but he was wide awake and glaring. How we laughed! She'd forgotten him, maybe, but we didn't touch him--no good interfering with Her.

They laugh when they find their comrade Ufthak strung up in Shelob's lair, possibly as he looks amusing (they may just have a dark sense of humour), possibly out of malice towards him. But he had been 'lost' which means he was missed, and it seems they could have been looking for him. The crucial point is why they leave him there and don't rescue him. Something to do with their understanding of Shelob, of not 'interfering'. She is intelligent and may seek revenge for her prey going missing? Leaving him there means one of them won't be eaten in turn? Anyway, what this suggests to me is that the Orcs are not always sporting. It's just not fair to leave a colleague strung up to be eaten, is it? That's an instance of Tolkien showing us that these Orcs are simply not sporting, that what they do is "Not Cricket".

I found another interesting bit in the discussion in this chapter too. That the Orcs themselves are afraid of the Nazgul, frightened of what they can do:

Those Nazgul give me the creeps. And they skin the body off you as soon as look at you, and leave you all cold in the dark on the other side. But He likes 'em; they're His favourites nowadays, so it's no use grumbling. I tell you, it's no game serving down in the city.

That's shockingly similar to what the Witch-King says to Eowyn, so it must be a very real threat, a real possibility. So the Orcs are very much 'whole' beings, and there is a possibility that their fea can be left naked and exposed - if they descend from Elves this would be possible by 'killing' them and then denying access to the Halls of Mandos; if they descend from Men it would be an abomination against Men's true nature. Anyway, that's not the point right now. The point is that Tolkien is possibly showing us there are different degrees of 'darkness', that even Orcs are frightened of something, even they are subject to the whims of the Nazgul and can be (and presumably sometimes are) hurt by them.

[Raynor]

Sauron wouldn't care for such matters if he got that particular trinket. And Orcs would not be above a little lying - maybe a tall tale about an almighty struggle would only add to the glory. ;) And even if Sauron did decide he was going to punish the "smug returning Orc with prize" for his disobedience, then that Orc wouldn't know that, he would assume he could easily get away with a small lie about something which happened in an out of the way corner of Mordor. Ultimately, Sauron wouldn't care:Well, while we are at discussing orcs... I think there are way too many risks for an orc to undertake all these risks, with little chance of any reward in sight. As you say, Sauron doesn't care about them. They would have to risk their lives in fighting comrades and their boss, then make it to Lugburz and bet that Sauron won't catch their lie and hope that Sauron won't become suspicious and not kill them, but actually reward them. I don't buy it. It is simpler to assume they wanted the shirt for themselves.
The crucial point is why they leave him there and don't rescue him. Something to do with their understanding of Shelob, of not 'interfering'. She is intelligent and may seek revenge for her prey going missing? Leaving him there means one of them won't be eaten in turn? Anyway, what this suggests to me is that the Orcs are not always sporting.I would say there is some sort of co-existence between Sauron and Shelob, and they recognize it and support it. However, it would have been more practical for them to save a comrade, esspecially if she forgot about him, and just bring something else there. But it may be that the whole perversity of the situation delighted them too much to do anything about it.
That's shockingly similar to what the Witch-King says to Eowyn, so it must be a very real threat, a real possibility. So the Orcs are very much 'whole' beings, and there is a possibility that their fea can be left naked and exposedI doubt the witch-king has such a power. There would have been some account of it, somewhere, in Arnor or at the Pellenor Fields. I am sure he would have used it as a propaganda stunt. It looks like a "myth", a cursing threat, to demoralise those who would oppose him. And even if he had it, I have doubts we can't surmise from a threat only that orcs do actually have a soul; the way the orc says it, he might have experienced himself the cold look, and felt terrified - fear was the witch-king's (and the nagul)'s main weapon. And if one is left cold in the dark on the other side, then one cannot come back and relate the whole thing :).
The point is that Tolkien is possibly showing us there are different degrees of 'darkness', that even Orcs are frightened of something, even they are subject to the whims of the Nazgul and can be (and presumably sometimes are) hurt by them.I agree.

[Bêthberry]

Orcs are not the only enemies in LotR. There is one small, very brief use of former enemies (victims?)--"noble foe"--which comes close to this sense of honourable opponent: Ghân-buri-Ghân and the Woses.

As a condition of aiding the battle against the orcs, Ghân-buri-Ghân asks the Rohirrim not to hunt the Wild Men any more as if they were beasts. Certainly the depiction of their language suggests that these people lack the beauty and eloquence (and hence, purity and goodness, as these qualities are most often related in Tolkien) of the elves and Men. Yet there is granted to the Woses a grudging respect because of the aid they deliver in the battle against the Dark Side.

The attitude towards the Woses' language skips along the edge of patronising linguistic patronage superiority--one could almost see similarities between Tolkien's attitude and that most often ascribed to Kipling in his linguistic depictions--but it is rather intriguing that Tolkien works this situation into the larger battle scheme. The Woses are a very small aside but this incident seems to reflect Tolkien's way of making his depiction more complex and less absolute than the larger "big picture" of the battle suggests. It's as if he cedes that the "noble and honourable" side have their own errors, faults and failings while granting to those who have suffered under the terror of Men the dignity and worth and valour which Men and elves are supposed to uphold.

[Raynor]

The Woses are a very small aside but this incident seems to reflect Tolkien's way of making his depiction more complex and less absolute than the larger "big picture" of the battle suggests. It's as if he cedes that the "noble and honourable" side have their own errors, faults and failings while granting to those who have suffered under the terror of Men the dignity and worth and valour which Men and elves are supposed to uphold.Well put! I would also note that the situation is more tragic as the Woses were on the good side in the war of wrath and were eligible to become Numenoreans themselves. Instead, they preserved their status, and perhaps their goodness moreso. A speculation I made a while ago is that they too were enhanced by Eonwe for their deeds, as it may seem from their use of magic.

[Nogrod]

Very interesting indeed!

There would have been the tradition for Tolkien to follow...

I remember reading from somewhere a long time ago that Caesar (in his De Bello Gallico) used to overexaggerate not only the numbers of the Gauls he fought but also their fiercness and bravery in battle to make his own victories look better.

If one looks at the medieval hero-stories like the Song of Roland or the stories of the crusades (Salahadin especially!), there also seems to be this opponent worth of opposing who really tests the hero's bravery and makes his glory ever greater. And in the case of Salahadin the enemy is even given some due renown of actually beating the heroes.

So what is different with Tolkien then?
But the question remains – what effect does the absence of a noble enemy have on Tolkien's heroes? Why did Tolkien omit the noble foe, the 'fellow brave', & if such figures had existed would we have had a different, more complex tale?
-----
Its ok to kill the enemy en masse, because the enemy is not noble or courageous. The hero never has to question the morality of what he is doing. Does this prevent his moral growth?The most straightforward answer - and thence probably not the best or most fruitful - might allude to his experiences in WW1. Sir Kohran had a few really good points on this. But as I said I'm not quite happy with that even if killing of unknown "units of the faceless enemy" would have been the great shock of that war for those who were forced to participate in it.

Somehow it looks like numbness in front of violence, a denial for any dignity given to those on the "other side". Getting numb is possibly the only way to survive terrible enough experiences. But such a romantic and not giving any gallant enemies for our heroes to beat? It would have been the tradition, it would have made the heroes more valiant and their cause & morals somehow more intricate and still he did not go for it.

The nameless and numerous pawns of evil (corrupted or forced) it then is that the prof saw the last heroes fighting their ungallant battle until the great times ended and the time of men began - with no valour or virtues but just numbers and non-identity. So the WW1 is still lurking here?

And if it is, it sounds pretty sad and depressing world that was the one he was looking at.

[davem]

Ok, I take Bb's point re the Woses - yet the Woses are never really seen as 'foes' by the Rohirrim. Up till the War of the Ring they are seen as little better than animals to be hunted, & after they offer their service they become allies. At no point are they 'noble foes' (one would have to class them as 'noble savages').

Somehow it looks like numbness in front of violence, a denial for any dignity given to those on the "other side". Getting numb is possibly the only way to survive terrible enough experiences. But such a romantic and not giving any gallant enemies for our heroes to beat? It would have been the tradition, it would have made the heroes more valiant and their cause & morals somehow more intricate and still he did not go for it.

This is the point I've been struggling to get across. Of course the question is begged as to whether the enemies (or some of them at least) were noble warrors, deserving of respect, but this was denied by the victors. Of course, that would be too difficult to accept, as it would basically make the heroes liars. So we are left with the simpler explanation - those on the other side are all cowards, cruel, vicious & deserving only of death. And yet

Aragorn pardons his (human) foes & accepts (or conscripts) them into the Commonwealth of Gondor. Why does he do this? Is it simply because they are Humans, & he feels (in Kipling's phrase) the 'White Man's Burden' & that it is his obligation to 'civilise' the 'savages' - or could it be that they are deemed worthy in some way to be included - they actually did display courage, albeit in a wrong cause, & Aragorn deemed them worthy of respect for their actions not simply for their genetics?

Yet if so, why is this not mentioned anywhere in the text? So Tolkien, writing an 'Epic Romance' excludes one of the central themes in Romance literature. One could cite Palomedes, the Saracen Knight in Malory - he is Tristan's rival for Iseult, & comes up against most of the Round Table Knights, yet he is a 'noble enemy'.

Nogrod makes a very interesting point - a noble foe ennobles a hero (is ennobles a word? Perhaps 'embiggens' .... :p ).

It is interesting to ponder what, if anything, is lost by this absence. Would Aragorn be a greater hero (or at the least a greater Man) if he had fought against a foe as honourable as he himself?

And yet, that would have been impossible given the kind of tale Tolkien was telling - but that brings up another question - what kind of tale was he telling? He denies it is an allegory, & 'prefers history, real or feigned', yet can we think of any historical conflict where one side was made up entirely of vicious cowards with no moral value system - doesn't this actually conflict with what we know of human nature? One cannot hold up the Nazis as heroes, yet there were individual German soldiers who performed acts of bravery, & commanders like Rommel were highly respected for their tactical skill & personal courage. In fact, we often see German soldiers at British commemorations of WWII. The leaders of Nazi Germany are obviously condemned, yet the ordinary troops are accepted as 'fellow braves'.

Now, none of this requires the heroes to like their enemy, it is about respect for the foe, because in a sense warriors share experiences that non combatants cannot know anything of - they have both suffered hardship & loss of comrades & 'speak a common language'. Yet Tolkien, the veteran, who must have known this very 'respect' for the foe, omits it entirely from his work. In various of the Letters he states that there are good & bad men on both sides in war - yet not in any of the wars he depicts.

I wonder if he felt restricted by the type of story he was telling - a noble enemy (even one or two) would have reflected a faint light of 'nobility' on the enemy's cause - & he couldn't risk such a thing, so the nature of the enemy is dictated by the nature of the tale, but one has to ask whether the tale itself & the heroes it tells of are in some way 'diminished'?

[Raynor]

I wonder if he felt restricted by the type of story he was telling - a noble enemy (even one or two) would have reflected a faint light of 'nobility' on the enemy's cause - & he couldn't risk such a thing, so the nature of the enemy is dictated by the nature of the tale, but one has to ask whether the tale itself & the heroes it tells of are in some way 'diminished'?It has already been pointed that there are various degrees of evil. We have Sauron who is the closest aproximation of it, as stated in the letters (I would personally put Melkor at least on the same level but whatever). Then there are the nazgul and the balrogs, who are probably unshakeable from their allegiance. Then the orcs who are in large numbers and very close to the edge; true enough, none are lauded. At least for these beings we can say that they are thoroughly corrupted; even if they do achieve something spectacular, is it actually their own abilities which bring about that result, or the force of evil, a very present and powerful one, which drives them forth? I would hold it is the later and that force of evil merits no recognition. Not morally, nor otherwise; why praise Melkor's force at work, which was the most powerful in Arda to begin with (less Eru's)?

However, there are also, as stated, other servants of Sauron, who can make brave last stands. We also have two parties at war because of Sauron/Melkor - but both parties are "good" and their worth recognized often: Feanor against teleri & Galadriel; Gondorians in the kin-strife; Thingol against the dwarves. These evil guys do receive recognition, but not for their evil deeds.

[davem]

Another thought occurs - what message does the reader take from Tolkien's work as regards war - its often stated that Tolkien's work reflects the tragedy of war - but is it so simple?

Of course tragedy runs through Tolkien's writings & that tragedy is often associated with the consequences of war...& yet...

War is only presented as tragic when the heroes ('our side') lose. When the other side lose it is seen as good, as glorious. So, war, in & of itself, is not tragic - only the defeat of 'our side' is tragic. War is only bad if 'we' lose.

Hence, we are not 'detatched, horrified observers of the horror (which we are in a real sense with Homer - when Hector fights Achilles we know that it will be horrible & that whoever wins we will feel grief. Hence Homer brings home the horror & tragedy that war is - no matter who wins there is loss & bereavement). We root for one side to win & only wish to see the utter defeat of the other. Thus, we only grieve when 'our side' loses, & cheer when the other side is beaten.

And that seems (to be provocative....) a questionable message, does it not?

EDIT

Feanor against teleri & Galadriel; Gondorians in the kin-strife; Thingol against the dwarves. These evil guys do receive recognition, but not for their evil deeds.

Of course - and yet the tragedy here is due to 'delusion' or trickery, not because noble warriors are fighting each other for causes they truly believe in. Hence, that element of tragedy is missing.

[Raynor]

War is only presented as tragic when the heroes ('our side') lose. When the other side lose it is seen as good, as glorious. So, war, in & of itself, is not tragic - only the defeat of 'our side' is tragic. War is only bad if 'we' lose.Then again, there is only one story, and that is unfinished, about confronting evil forces which are not (directly) imbued with a mythological power (The new shadow). If that particular power, through its various agents, succeeds, then it is end game. It is not like the victors have some good side that could, in time, develop. If Melkor wins, he brings the whole house down; he is too nihilistic not to, cf Myths Transformed. If Sauron wins, none may see the end of his reign, cf Gandalf, Last Debate.

We may see evil loosers in the third age who have less of an unfair advantage (I am reffering to their use of the evil power in Arda), and thus far more merit.

[davem]

Then again, there is only one story, and that is unfinished, about confronting evil forces which are not (directly) imbued with a mythological power (The new shadow). If that particular power, through its various agents, succeeds, then it is end game. It is not like the victors have some good side that could, in time, develop. If Melkor wins, he brings the whole house down; he is too nihilistic not to, cf Myths Transformed. If Sauron wins, none may see the end of his reign, cf Gandalf, Last Debate.

We may see evil loosers in the third age who have less of an unfair advantage (I am reffering to their use of the evil power in Arda), and thus far more merit.

Yes - but I'm not suggesting that the enemies we have in Tolkien's work are 'good, noble or heroic' - I'm asking why Tolkien chose to give us the enemies he did, & what effect that has on the story & on the heroes - why that whole dimension of the noble enemy, the 'fellow brave' is absent. There is no Hector to Aragorn's Achilles, & that particular & specific tragic horror of war is absent - is it a serious lack?

[Raynor]

Of course - and yet the tragedy here is due to 'delusion' or trickery, not because noble warriors are fighting each other for causes they truly believe in. Hence, that element of tragedy is missing.Excluding perhaps Feanor & sons, the noldor were convinced of their cause, that they were marching to freedom. Also, the late-coming noldor were fighting to save their kin, while the teleri were fighting to protect their treasured ships. In Gondor, there was also those who tried to preserve the old traditions and those who tried to preserve the existing blood line. I would hold all these fighted for causes in which they believed.
There is no Hector to Aragorn's Achilles, & that particular & specific tragic horror of war is absent - is it a serious lack?The problem is that a Hector marred by Melkor would have little merit. This is not just a moral corruption; evil men can stirr great evil, at least during those mythical times. His merit (if he had any; it can be argued that his free will would have been heavily subdued) would be diminished by using "nukes" against "savages". Resisting that kind of evil, in the first three ages, is always a long defeat from an individual point of view, without "outside" intervention.

[Child of the 7th Age]

When the other side lose it is seen as good, as glorious. So, war, in & of itself, is not tragic - only the defeat of 'our side' is tragic. War is only bad if 'we' lose......

We root for one side to win & only wish to see the utter defeat of the other. Thus, we only grieve when 'our side' loses, & cheer when the other side is beaten.


Whoa! Wait a minute. ;)

If the message is so clear cut, how do you understand Frodo's response in the Scouring? Yes, he's exhausted, and that has something to do with his reluctance to take up a sword. But surely there's more to it than that.

Isn't this a case of Tolkien saying that there is more than one way to look at the use of force? Frodo is in a sense grieving even before the loss of life takes place and it's for the other side, even more than for his own. Plus, we're not just talking hobbits here, but also men.

Frodo's stance is clearly not the only way. It may not even be the best way in a practical sense (from the viewpoint of the story), but I never felt that JRRT was looking down his nose at Frodo because of the position he took. In the Letters, Tolkien tells us that "Frodo's attitude to weapons was personal" and that "he had.... reached the conclusion that physical fighting is actually less ultimately effective than most (good) men think." The efforts of Merry and Pippin essentially free the Shire, but Frodo's presence keeps bloodshed to a minimum. And it is only Frodo who has the moral authority to offer Saruman the chance of redemption essential for the moral balance of the story. Isn't Tolkien saying something about the necessity of having more than one side represented on a question of this type? In a sense he is reminding the reader that the use of physical force has plenty of questions attatched to it.

And speaking of giving your enemies a second chance... The offer to Saruman was an example of that.

[davem]

And I take those points - yet, the Ruffians were not 'noble, fellow braves', but cowards. Of course Frodo realises that killing is wrong, & seeks to halt, or limit any deaths, but the question I'm posing is different. War seems to be a fact of life in both the primary & secondary world, but it is the nature of the enemy that interests me. In most wars there is heroism & self sacrifice on both sides - heroes fight heroes & no side has a sole claim on nobility & courage.

Except in Middle-earth. Frodo wants an end of killing per se - but that would require an end of the Warrior, of the cause worth dying for (& I'm not limiting 'Warrior' to the military sense).

And war, for all its horror, may produce heroism which is seen nowhere else - yet for such heroism to happen it seems to me that warriors must exist on both sides. If the other side consists wholly of cowardly 'monsters' then the 'hero' is actually reduced to the role of cockroach exterminator - he may go down fighting under a million cockroaches, & that may be a brave act if he does so willingly, to save his friends, but is it 'Heroic' in the Homeric sense - & is it 'tragic' or merely sad if the enemy is not equally noble & his death not an equal loss?

Now, none of this is meant to denigrate Tolkien's achievement, merely to ask whether something important has been missed out & whether that something is of far greater importance than the usual stuff Tolkien is accused of avoiding - like sex, for instance (Pullman's great bugbear. And interestingly Pullman does present us with a noble tragic 'anti-hero' - Lord Asriel...)

[Raynor]

And war, for all its horror, may produce heroism which is seen nowhere else - yet for such heroism to happen it seems to me that warriors must exist on both sides.What am I to understand? You haven't addressed my last post. We do have persons doing evil acts, for causes which they believe. I also challenged the claim to merit of beings utterly corrupted. It is good to ask a question, but you also need to consider the answers.

[davem]

What am I to understand? You haven't addressed my last post. We do have persons doing evil acts, for causes which they believe. I also challenged the claim to merit of beings utterly corrupted. It is good to ask a question, but you also need to consider the answers.

I don't see the Kinslaying being a fight between opposing 'causes', but of opposing desires - the Noldor wanted to get to M-e, the Teleri wanted to prevent their ships being stolen - bit like the fight between a housholder & a burglar.

I think you have a point re the Kinstrife, but if anything that is the exception that proves the rule.....

[Raynor]

I don't see the Kinslaying being a fight between opposing 'causes', but of opposing desires - the Noldor wanted to get to M-e, the Teleri wanted to prevent their ships being stolen - bit like the fight between a housholder & a burglar.Which is not to say that protecting one's property isn't a cause, esspecially if they treasured as much as Feanor treasured the silmarils (as Olwe says). In fact, both Feanor and the teleri are moved to action (or resistance) by a similar love: the preservation of the greatest work of Art their hands; it is the same cause, but with different instances. Moreover the teleri tried to dissuade the noldor and didn't want to help them, because they still believed in the valar and would not act against their will.

And what do you think about my argument that corrupted persons isn't entitled to merits?
Edit:
Here is a quote to that extent, regarding massive support from Sauron to his warriors
But the Nazgul turned and fled, and vanished into Mordor's shadows, hearing a sudden terrible call out of the Dark Tower; and even at that moment all the hosts of Mordor trembled, doubt clutched their hearts, their laughter failed, their hands shook and their limbs were loosed. The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid.If necessary, I could present the quotes from the letters, LotR and UT reffering to the strength Sauron gives to the nazgul and their complete obedience to him (not much time right now).

[davem]

I accept that corrupted persons don't deserve merit - the point I'm making is that all the enemy are 'corrupt' - there is a serious absence of 'uncorrupt' enemies & I'm wondering why, & about the effect that has on the story & the heroes.

The closest thing I can think of to the 'tragic' battle in the Homeric sense is the lead up to the Battle of Five Armies, where we almost get a battle between Bard & the Elven King & Thorin & Dain. This would have produced the kind of epic battle I'm talking about, with heroes on both sides. Yet it never happens.

[Raynor]

I accept that corrupted persons don't deserve merit - the point I'm making is that all the enemy are 'corrupt' - there is a serious absence of 'uncorrupt' enemiesWell, seeing my previous examples, it would be safer to say that all those who are in evident and long term service to the evil guys are corrupt and lack merit. We still have the ocasionally evil guys, who maintain their ability to turn to the good side.

I believe the explanation is that you cannot have independend stanbyers, not in a time when an evil of mythological power is present. Saruman may not have been wholly corrupt when he looked in the palantir, but you can't be lukewarm towards Eru and hope to get away with Sauron. His wickedness, however small, was a gateway to a much greater evil. Likewise, elves who refused the summons of the valar were vulnerable to countersummons of Melkor. There can't be a middle ground in the middle of a battle between such great powers. Perhaps later, with no Sauron and the valar fading, we might get to that.

[Lalwendë]

We seem to be getting a bit stuck. Anyway, I thought I'd go and have a good look at the text again to see how the idea of Enemies is presented. Not got onto Return yet, but so far there seems to be a pattern consistent with race/character emerging. The attitude towards Enemies seems to very in degrees.

1. At the almost pacifistic level we have Gandalf who famously corrects Frodo when the Hobbit wonders why Gollum was not put to death:

'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. 'I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it.

2. Frodo is next. He is not the most peacable, due to his statement above, but he quickly learns from Gandalf:

Gollum collapsed and went as loose as wet string. Sam got up, fingering his shoulder. His eyes smouldered with anger, but he could not avenge himself: his miserable enemy lay grovelling on the stones whimpering.

'Don't hurt us! Don't let them hurt us, precious! They won't hurt us will they, nice little hobbitses? We didn't mean no harm, but they jumps on us like cats on poor mices, they did, precious. And we're so lonely, gollum. We'll be nice to them, very nice, if they'll be nice to us, won't we, yes, yess."

"Well, what's to be done with it?" said Sam. "Tie it up, so as it can't come sneaking after us no more, I say."

"But that would kill us, kill us," whimpered Gollum. 'Cruel little hobbitses. Tie us up in the cold hard lands and leave us, gollum, gollum." Sobs welled up in his gobbling throat.

'No," said Frodo. "If we kill him, we must kill him outright. But we can't do that, not as things are. Poor wretch! He has done us no harm."

3. Sam comes next. He is the one who thoughtfully expresses those words on the fallen Southron - and note here the echoes of Empire in the description of the fallen man, and the echoes of WWI and WWII in Sam's thoughts:

His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword.

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace--all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind

4. Faramir's attitude seems to be next in line. He is of course a professional soldier so we cannot expect him to express the kinds of views that Gandalf would. But he clearly thinks about his role and his responsibilities and doing his job certainly does not give him 'pleasure':

For I am commanded to slay all whom I find in this land without the leave of the Lord of Gondor. But I do not slay man or beast needlessly, and not gladly even when it is needed.

5. Then comes Aragorn, who is not as sensitive as Faramir and does not pontificate on the morality of killing save that he justifies it from his own point of view as a practical matter. He even makes a little soundbite about what kind of determination goes through a man's mind when he pursues an enemy:

"I serve no man," said Aragorn; 'but the servants of Sauron I pursue into whatever land they may go. There are few among mortal Men who know more of Orcs; and I do not hunt them in this fashion out of choice. The Orcs whom we pursued took captive two of my friends. In such need a man that has no horse will go on foot, and he will not ask for leave to follow the trail. Nor will he count the heads of the enemy save with a sword. I am not weaponless.

He's a bit arrogant with the Orcs too, appearing to want to offer parley at Helm's Deep but merely wanting to offer them a bit of bluster from the walls - of course the Orcs respond by shooting arrows at him. As you would. ;)

'Get down or we will shoot you from the wall," they cried. "This is no parley. You have nothing to say."

"I have still this to say," answered Aragorn. 'No enemy has yet taken the Hornburg. Depart, or not one of you will be spared. Not one will be left alive to take back tidings to the North. You do not know your peril."

6. Next come Legolas and Gimli who make some sport out of their killings at Helm's Deep, which is not an entirely pleasant thing, nor is it even funny as Peter Jackson seems to think. Rather than portraying humour here I think Tolkien is echoing the grim 'point scoring' which many WWII fighter pilots and bomber crews engaged in when they would paint numbers of 'kills' onto the fuselage of their aircraft:

"There may be many a chance ere the night is over," laughed the Dwarf. "But I am content. Till now I have hewn naught but wood since I left Moria."

"Two!" said Gimli, patting his axe. He had returned to his place on the wall.

"Two?" said Legolas. "I have done better, though now I must grope for spent arrows; all mine are gone. Yet I make my tale twenty at the least. But that is only a few leaves in a forest."

7. Then we get the Rohirrim who are at times extremely questionable in their attitudes. They seem not to echo anything even remotely modern (and by that I mean from the high Middle Ages and beyond), but to take a more Early Middle Ages approach which is quite bloodthirsty.

When Gandalf appears with his troops, the Orcs surrender:

The White Rider was upon them, and the terror of his coming filled the enemy with madness. The wild men fell on their faces before him. The Orcs reeled and screamed and cast aside both sword and spear. Like a black smoke driven by a mounting wind they fled. Wailing they passed under the waiting shadow of the trees; and from that shadow none ever came again.

But were they taken prisoner? No. Somehow they were all killed. Perhaps they slipped on some cunningly placed banana skins and impaled themselves on Rohirric spears? Or did the dog do it? the fuller passage is quoted here as it also includes a good reference point to how Men can offer other Men respect, but not Orcs.

No Orcs remained alive; their bodies were uncounted. But a great many of the hillmen had given themselves up; and they were afraid, and cried for mercy.

The Men of the Mark took their weapons from them, and set them to work.

"Help now to repair the evil in which you have joined," said Erkenbrand; 'and afterwards you shall take an oath never again to pass the Fords of Isen in arms, nor to march with the enemies of Men; and then you shall go free back to your land. For you have been deluded by Saruman. Many of you have got death as the reward of your trust in him; but had you conquered, little better would your wages have been."

The men of Dunland were amazed, for Saruman had told them that the men of Rohan were cruel and burned their captives alive.

In the midst of the field before the Hornburg two mounds were raised, and beneath them were laid all the Riders of the Mark who fell in the defence, those of the East Dales upon one side, and those of Westfold upon the other. In a grave alone under the shadow of the Hornburg lay Hama, captain of the King's guard. He fell before the Gate.

The Orcs were piled in great heaps, away from the mounds of Men, not far from the eaves of the forest. And the people were troubled in their minds; for the heaps of carrion were too great for burial or for burning. They had little wood for firing, and none would have dared to take an axe to the strange trees, even if Gandalf had not warned them to hurt neither bark nor bough at their great peril.

'Let the Orcs lie," said Gandalf. "The morning may bring new counsel."

And listen to Eomer's attitude towards the Dunlendings:

"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun," said Gamling. 'And neither will the wild men of the hills. Do you not hear their voices?"

"I hear them," said Eomer; 'but they are only the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts to my ears."

'Yet there are many that cry in the Dunland tongue," said Gamling. "I know that tongue. It is an ancient speech of men, and once was spoken in many western valleys of the Mark. Hark! They hate us, and they are glad; for our doom seems certain to them. "The king, the king!" they cry. "We will take their king. Death to the Forgoil! Death to the Strawheads! Death to the robbers of the North!" Such names they have for us. Not in half a thousand years have they forgotten their grievance that the lords of Gondor gave the Mark to Eorl the Young and made alliance with him. That old hatred Saruman has inflamed. They are fierce folk when roused. They will not give way now for dusk or dawn, until Theoden is taken, or they themselves are slain."

The Dunlendings' attitude is no different to that of the Rohirrim. No wonder Saruman chose to inflame their hatred and liking for a good scrap. Saruman indeed has the Rohirrim attitude to war pinned down to a T:

To every man his part. Valour in arms is yours, and you win high honour thereby. Slay whom your lord names as enemies, and be content. Meddle not in policies which you do not understand

[Raynor]

Then comes Aragorn, who is not as sensitive as Faramir and does not pontificate on the morality of killing save that he justifies it from his own point of view as a practical matter.I don't think it does him justice to consider this a purely "practical" matter. His friends were caught, and they were about to be kiled or worse. I see no room in him other than concern. I don't read bloodthirst but a sense of urgency, seeing that he knows what orcs are. And all this is in accord with Gandalf's words, that "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us".
But were they taken prisoner? No. Somehow they were all killed. Perhaps they slipped on some cunningly placed banana skins and impaled themselves on Rohirric spears?I disagree
Wailing they passed under the waiting shadow of the trees; and from that shadow none ever came again.
...
- Then if not yours, whose is the wizardry? said Theoden. 'Not Saruman's, that is plain. Is there some mightier sage, of whom we have yet to learn?'
- It is not wizardry, but a power far older, said Gandalf: a power that walked the earth, ere elf sang or hammer rang.They way I interpret this is that Saruman's old buddies from the woods took care of the orcs - not the Rohirrim.
And listen to Eomer's attitude towards the Dunlendings:
...
"I hear them," said Eomer; 'but they are only the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts to my ears."I don't see your point. As Pengolodh states in Quendi and Eldar about the audio impact language of the valar, 'plainly the effect of Valarin upon Elvish ears was not pleasing'. Which is not to say that the Eldar had a low opinion of the valar.

[Lalwendë]

The Orcses who run off go under the trees, but not all of 'em. What happened to 'em?

I don't see your point. As Pengolodh states in Quendi and Eldar about the audio impact language of the valar, 'plainly the effect of Valarin upon Elvish ears was not pleasing'. Which is not to say that the Eldar had a low opinion of the valar.

The 'point' is that Eomer is saying the Dunlendings sound like animals, worse, like 'beasts'. He doesn't just say he cannot understand them (as Gamling patiently points out it is an ancient language), he equates their language and them with 'beasts'. There's a definite point here as Tolkien was a skilled linguist and will have known not only the importance and inherent beauty of old languages but will have known the 'politics' involved with language, that no language is the sound of 'beasts'. The sound of 'Dunlendish' is not merely 'unpleasing' to Eomer, it sounds savage.

[Raynor]

The Orcses who run off go under the trees, but not all of 'em. What happened to 'em?I am not versed enough in English to nitpick on the very quote you gave. What it seems to me is that all orcs cast aside their spear or sword and ran off into the woods. If some of them didn't ran, I expect that they were very few in numbers, they kept or re-took their weapons (if they threw them in the first place) and continued to battle. But frankly, I see no proof any orc remained behind to contemplate Theoden and Gandalf.
The 'point' is that Eomer is saying the Dunlendings sound like animals, worse, like 'beasts'. And Gamling doesn't disagree, although he looks more familiar with this language than Eomer. I see no reason why Eomer was distorting a fact. Do you think he did?
The sound of 'Dunlendish' is not merely 'unpleasing' to Eomer, it sounds savage.These people were eating, breathing and living in hate; they were at war; they were stirred by Saruman. I could only expect that their "alien" language, as described in the appendices, would sound rather harsh under these circumstances. I find French to be very melodic, but I have no doubt a person can "bark" in French. While some people find Russian or German less than pleasant, to be polite, I don't presume they demonise the russians or the germans. Anyway, the dunlendings being savage is consistent with Gamling description of them.

[davem]

These people were eating, breathing and living in hate; they were at war; they were stirred by Saruman. I could only expect that their "alien" language, as described in the appendices, would sound rather harsh under these circumstances. I find French to be very melodic, but I have no doubt a person can "bark" in French. While some people find Russian or German less than pleasant, to be polite, I don't presume they demonise the russians or the germans. Anyway, the dunlendings being savage is consistent with Gamling description of them.

Yes, but... (& here I think I may be arguing against my own theory, but I'll throw it in anyway)

The folk of Rohan were hardly a tolerant bunch - we know they hunted the Woses for sport, which is a clear denial of their humanity. It wouldn't surprise me to find that they saw the Dunlendings in the same way. The Dunlendings may have been 'stirred by Saruman', but I doubt it took much effort on his part to get them to turn on the Horselords. If they hated the folk of Rohan it was hardly without cause. The Rohirrim were clearly a folk in awe of their more 'advanced' neighbours to the south & looked with contempt on both the Woses & the Dunlendings.

Gamling's words are significant:

"Not in half a thousand years have they forgotten their grievance that the lords of Gondor gave the Mark to Eorl the Young and made alliance with him. That old hatred Saruman has inflamed. They are fierce folk when roused. They will not give way now for dusk or dawn, until Theoden is taken, or they themselves are slain."

He acknowledges that his own people drove the Dunlendings out of their ancestral lands & that they are 'fierce folk' who will fight to the death, rather than turn & run.

What I take from this is that Eomer is equivalent to a junior officer who has a pretty self satisfied view of his own superiority over the 'savages'. He is like the upper class Victorian young man who graduates from Sandhurst or West Point with a head full of military knowledge but with so little practical experience that he's likely to get himself & his men killed in their first combat due to his underestimating the enemy. Gamling is the veteran sergeant who knows his enemy through experience, doesn't underestimate them, & is prepared to acknowledge their reckless bravery, & thus manages to prevent the 'h'officer' from leading his men to their deaths. And I wonder if we find an echo of Tida & Totta in this incident?

In fact, I can imagine Gamling speaking the words of Kipling I quoted at the start of this thread in regards to the Dunlendings:

’E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An’, before we know, ’e’s ’ackin’ at our ’ead;
’E’s all ’ot sand an’ ginger when alive,
An’ ’e’s generally shammin’ when ’e’s dead.
’E’s a daisy, ’e’s a ducky, ’e’s a lamb!
’E’s a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
’E’s the on’y thing that doesn’t give a d**n
For a Regiment o’ Rohan Cavalree

[Raynor]

The folk of Rohan were hardly a tolerant bunch - we know they hunted the Woses for sport, which is a clear denial of their humanity.In Unfinished Tales it is stated that the rohirrim didn't recognize them as humans. And there is a precedence to this: the eldar hunting petty dwarves, who weren't recognized as sentient beings either. Also, hunting a beast may be more than a sport, more like a problem of survival in special conditions. Their description, esspecially of their relentlessness in pursuing enemies, isn't much conducive to cooperative feelings.

[Bêthberry]

In Unfinished Tales it is stated that the rohirrim didn't recognize them as humans. And there is a precedence to this: the eldar hunting petty dwarves, who weren't recognized as sentient beings either. Also, hunting a beast may be more than a sport, more like a problem of survival in special conditions. Their description, esspecially of their relentlessness in pursuing enemies, isn't much conducive to cooperative feelings.

'orrible, isn't it, how easy it is to justify genocide.

I'm reminded of the fate of the Boethuk Indians (http://www.manataka.org/page266.html) of Newfoundland, of whom some reports say they were hunted like animals.

[davem]

'orrible, isn't it, how easy it is to justify genocide.

I'm reminded of the fate of the Boethuk Indians (http://www.manataka.org/page266.html) of Newfoundland, of whom some reports say they were hunted like animals.

And what is Tolkien's attitude to the treatment of these races by the Rohirrim? Of course, the bodies of the slain Dunlendings are not burned like those of the Orcs, but perhaps its a case of 'The only good Dunlending is a dead Dunleanding.' I also note that the surviving Dunlendings are set to work 'cleaning up the mess they've made' - not allowed to rest like the Rohirrim, & any cause or justification they may have is dismissed by Erkenbrand & put down purely to their stupidity in believing Saruman.

And yet, I wonder if their treatment of the Woses later is meant to show the moral growth of the people......

Sorry that's too quick, but I don't have time...

[Raynor]

'orrible, isn't it, how easy it is to justify genocide. What genocide?? A passing mention doesn't amount to systematic or mass killings. Aren't you taking this too far?

[Lalwendë]

"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun," said Gamling. 'And neither will the wild men of the hills. Do you not hear their voices?"

"I hear them," said Eomer; 'but they are only the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts to my ears."

'Yet there are many that cry in the Dunland tongue," said Gamling. "I know that tongue. It is an ancient speech of men, and once was spoken in many western valleys of the Mark. Hark! They hate us, and they are glad; for our doom seems certain to them. "The king, the king!" they cry. "We will take their king. Death to the Forgoil! Death to the Strawheads! Death to the robbers of the North!" Such names they have for us. Not in half a thousand years have they forgotten their grievance that the lords of Gondor gave the Mark to Eorl the Young and made alliance with him. That old hatred Saruman has inflamed. They are fierce folk when roused. They will not give way now for dusk or dawn, until Theoden is taken, or they themselves are slain."

And Gamling doesn't disagree, although he looks more familiar with this language than Eomer

Not many soldiers would openly disagree with their superior officer, especially with one like Eomer, who is not only royal but is also quite a fierce character! In fact Gamling goes as far as he can by simply explaining the linguistic history of these people and why they hate the Rohirrim so much. He very much 'puts Eomer right' in what he says. Whereas Eomer associates the Dunlendish language with animals, Gamling gives it a history and meaning; Eomer demeans it whereas Gamling acknowledges it.

One of the commonest ways of oppressing and sometimes even exterminating a culture is to denigrate the language of a people, which is what Eomer is doing.

Bethberry and davem know what I'm talking about. Tolkien knew what I'm talking about. Language and identity are deeply intertwined. This is why many people in Wales today resolutely maintain Welsh as a first language (and my great-great grandfather refused to learn English); the English and the Irish establishment tried to Anglicise place names in the Gaeltacht region of Ireland which was not popular - there's a great play by Brain Friel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translations) built around this matter. Dunlendish is given a place in the history of Arda's languages by Tolkien, and is, if I recall correctly, linked to the original language of the Hobbits before they took up (submitted to the relentless force of?) the Common Speech.

Eomer's attitude towards the language of the Dunledings is not just cultural imperialism, it verges on racism, whether intentional or not is another matter. And davem is right that Tolkien shows how the Rohirrim learn to move away from these attitudes as his story progresses. Language is a powerful aspect (the most powerful aspect? Some would say so) of Tolkien's work and we can learn a lot from his characters' realtionships with it.

The other interesting thing, which is entirely a side issue to this topic, but I had to get down ;) is that this is a great example of how Tolkien worked characterisation not into 'interior monologue' but into speech.

am not versed enough in English to nitpick on the very quote you gave. What it seems to me is that all orcs cast aside their spear or sword and ran off into the woods. If some of them didn't ran, I expect that they were very few in numbers, they kept or re-took their weapons (if they threw them in the first place) and continued to battle. But frankly, I see no proof any orc remained behind to contemplate Theoden and Gandalf.

And on language... ;) No, it's not anything 'hidden' in the language, simply that we see Orcs laying down their weapons, and the next we know is that some run off into the trees and are 'eaten up' (or whatever horror happens there) and some lie dead. It never states what actually happens in between.

[Raynor]

One of the commonest ways of oppressing and sometimes even exterminating a culture is to denigrate the language of a people, which is what Eomer is doing.You are making a big leap from presumed individual cultural violence (I see no reason behind his statement other than dislike of an instance when an alien language was used probably in its worst form) to institutional violence. That's a slippery slope fallacy, since I know of no other argument to support this idea.
It never states what actually happens in between.We know that the besieged retaliated; some while back, even Legolas claims some 20 casualties. We have evidence of other cause, and no direct evidence of Rohirrim attacking weaponless orcs.

[Nogrod]

The 'point' is that Eomer is saying the Dunlendings sound like animals, worse, like 'beasts'. He doesn't just say he cannot understand them (as Gamling patiently points out it is an ancient language), he equates their language and them with 'beasts'. There's a definite point here as Tolkien was a skilled linguist and will have known not only the importance and inherent beauty of old languages but will have known the 'politics' involved with language, that no language is the sound of 'beasts'. The sound of 'Dunlendish' is not merely 'unpleasing' to Eomer, it sounds savage.And he surely is here recounting the attitude of the ancient Greeks who thought that the language of all non-Greeks sounded like "bar-bar-bar-bar", harsh, savage and brute. So they decided to name all those non-Greeks with a common name of barbar. Aristotle says in his Politics that outside the Greek city-states (polis) there dwells only gods and beasts.

So we meet here with an ancient arrogance that is so much a part of our cultural heritage, tied up with language. As Lal said: the language is a major part of our identity.

I find French to be very melodic, but I have no doubt a person can "bark" in French. While some people find Russian or German less than pleasant, to be polite, I don't presume they demonise the russians or the germans.And russians think their language is beautiful and special as no doubt germans think of their own. I don't think we can very easily make an objective valuation to the degrees of beauty between different languages. We may be enlightened enough nowadays that we don't demonise others because of their language but that has not been always the case - and no doubt some far-nationalistic parties flirt with these sentiments even today and seem to gain at least some followers. :(

[Lalwendë]

You are making a big leap from presumed individual cultural violence (I see no reason behind his statement other than dislike of an instance when an alien language was used probably in its worst form) to institutional violence. That's a slippery slope fallacy, since I know of no other argument to support this idea..

Saying that someone's language is not language but merely "the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts" goes way beyond mere dislike. Eomer may not be jumping in the face of a Dunlending and making mocking ape noises but the thoughts he expresses are the same thing. And this is why Tolkien takes the care to give Gamling the words of reason, of intelligence, to put him right.

Bear in mind that Eomer is also one of the powerful elite of Rohan, one of the establishment, a leader. It is his responsibility to set an example, and if that example is one of racism then it is not good. But Tolkien gives him a wise soldier who will correct him. Maybe Tolkien himself may have had to do this to his own superiors in war? The attitudes of the English in general towards Germans are apalling and have been for a very long time (way before WWI) - Tolkien on the other hand was much more understanding, as expressed in his letter about the ridiculous idea of the German people being 'exterminated' as some spurious 'punishment' for WWII. I don't doubt his understanding sprang from his skill and love of language.

We know that the besieged retaliated; some while back, even Legolas claims some 20 casualties. We have evidence of other cause, and no direct evidence of Rohirrim attacking weaponless orcs.

I'm talking of after Gandalf turns up with the cavalry and the Orcs: "reeled and screamed and cast aside both sword and spear." Tolkien then says: "Like a black smoke driven by a mounting wind they fled. Wailing they passed under the waiting shadow of the trees; and from that shadow none ever came again. " That explains that the trees 'ate' some, but then later we read: "No Orcs remained alive; their bodies were uncounted. But a great many of the hillmen had given themselves up; and they were afraid, and cried for mercy."

Not clear at all what happens in between.

[Raynor]

Saying that someone's language is not language but merely "the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts" goes way beyond mere dislike.I don't have the books handy, but it seems like they are talking about war cries. If I am correct, and I will check later, then, generally, war cries are pretty much consistent with his description; they are intended to sound "savage" and instil fear. This would only strengthen the accuracy of his description and diminish whatever fears we might have of his racism, based on this quote.
Not clear at all what happens in between.In which case any presumptions that the rohirrim killed weaponless orcs are mere speculations, matters of personal opinions.

[davem]

I don't have the books handy, but it seems like they are talking about war cries. If I am correct, and I will check later, then, generally, war cries are pretty much consistent with his description; they are intended to sound "savage" and instil fear. This would only strengthen the accuracy of his description and diminish whatever fears we might have of his racism, based on this quote.

Which would perhaps work - if we didn't have their treatment of the Woses to take into account. Or must we imagine that the Woses also regularly attacked the Rohirrim, & that this is the reason for their being hunted like animals?

But no - Ghan's words to Theoden make it clear that the Woses are innocent victims - Ghan effectively asks Theoden to stop hunting the Wildmen, & Theoden agrees - no request that the Wildmen stop attacking the Rohirrim in return - they aren't agreeing a peace treaty: the Woses are begging for their lives & the survival of their race.

Like Lal I believe this is deliberate on Tolkien's part - the Rohirrim are an uncultured people when compared to the Gondorians & Tolkien is clear about their faults, but he also shows quite effectively the beginnings of their moral growth in their treatment of the Woses at the end.

[Raynor]

if we didn't have their treatment of the Woses to take into account.Concerning the rohirrim, we could at best accuse them of being dumb in the past, not able to distinguish some, arguably, rather ugly humanoid beings from beasts. Elfhelm recognizes, at the time of LotR, that they are crafty with wood - but they also are "wild and wary as the beasts" [and wielding poisoned arrows, and he is happy that "they are not hunting us" - doesn't that raise the question of retaliation in the past too?]. Frankly, their description in UT, including that of the elves, resembles this. Unfortunately, misunderstandings like this have happened in the past, as I mentioned Eldar/petty dwarves; this is all too possible in a world where the lies and deceits of Melkor "bear dark fruits unto the latest days".

We have no information of what led to the attacks of the Rohirrim, when they started, how they lasted, how many were involved, or how many casulaties were on each side. Seeing that the drugs are "relentless enemies", whose "red wrath was slow to cool", and that, however, they voluntarily offered to help the rohirrim, I can only see this as emphasising the whole tragedy as in a distant past. The attacks were not meant to be against sentient beings; if the Eldar can be exonerated from moral blame, then so should the rohirrim. After all, it is intention that defines the morality of an action.

[Lalwendë]

Concerning the rohirrim, we could at best accuse them of being dumb in the past, not able to distinguish some, arguably, rather ugly humanoid beings from beasts.


So if someone is thick enough not to be capable of tolerance and respect towards other people who are a bit ugly by their standards then they can be excused?

Errr...


:confused:

[davem]

Elfhelm recognizes, at the time of LotR, that they are crafty with wood - but they also are "wild and wary as the beasts" [and wielding poisoned arrows, and he is happy that "they are not hunting us" - doesn't that raise the question of retaliation in the past too?.

So retaliating when you're attacked justifies the the attacker's behaviour?


this is all too possible in a world where the lies and deceits of Melkor "bear dark fruits unto the latest days".

Ah, the old 'Melkor made me do it' argument....

We have no information of what led to the attacks of the Rohirrim, when they started, how they lasted, how many were involved, or how many casulaties were on each side. Seeing that the drugs are "relentless enemies", whose "red wrath was slow to cool", and that, however, they voluntarily offered to help the rohirrim, I can only see this as emphasising the whole tragedy as in a distant past. The attacks were not meant to be against sentient beings; if the Eldar can be exonerated from moral blame, then so should the rohirrim. After all, it is intention that defines the morality of an action.

I don't read the passage in that way. To me the Woses offered to help the Rohirrim for one reason only - they were on the verge of being extirminated & saw little hope whichever side won, but slightly more if they could win the Rohirrim over.

'But if you live after the Darkness, then leave Wild Men alone in the woods and do not hunt them like beasts any more. Ghan-buri-Ghan will not lead you into trap. He will go himself with father of Horse-men, and if he leads you wrong, you will kill him.'

This hardly implies that the hunting is in the distant past - Ghan is asking that his people are not hunted anymore. And his last line is certainly ambiguous - it may, of course, be read simply as a deal Ghan is making - 'I'll go with you & help & if I lead you wrong, you can kill me.' (ie 'We're equals & these are the terms of our agreement'), but it may just as easily be read as ' I'll go with you & help & I know that if I lead you wrong you'll kill me.' (ie 'I'll help you because you're the lesser of two evils as far as my people are concerned, but I'm well aware you guys are a bunch of spear happy yahoos who think killing people like me is perfectly fine, so I'm under no illusion that if I don't do as you want I'm warg meat').

Of course, we can't tar the whole of the Rohirrim with the same brush - Gamling is evidence that some of them at least recognised that the other peoples were human beings.

[Nogrod]

Concerning the rohirrim, we could at best accuse them of being dumb in the past, not able to distinguish some, arguably, rather ugly humanoid beings from beasts.I probably didn't spell out what I meant clearly enough the last time... :(

In classical thought it's not a question of appearance but of essentia, of what one is, not how one looks. The Greeks surely had no problem recognising familiar features in Persians. Still the Persians were not men but beasts because they lacked the essence of humanity (mankind) which is Reason expressed through Greek language and which is shown in the reasoned society they had built them in the city-states.

So the ancient thought didn't classify the world according to looks but according to essences. The prof knew this well enough and I believe used it accordingly... At least I see the stance of the Rohirrim quite unproblematically in this way.

[Raynor]

So if someone is thick enough not to be capable of tolerance and respect towards other people who are a bit ugly by their standards then they can be excused?I never argued they were thick enough to be intolerant about people. Only that they were thick enough not to recognise drugs as sentient beings. If you want to argue about the morality of that, fine, let us do it. But please don't misrepresent my argument.

[Elmo]

but do you think that the Rohirrim did recognise them as sentient people? There are plenty of examples in history of peoples hunting other people because they consider them inferior...

[Raynor]

Still the Persians were not men but beasts because they lacked the essence of humanity (mankind) which is Reason expressed through Greek language and which is shown in the reasoned society they had built them in the city-states.May I ask where this idea appears, during which period it was representative of the greeks, and the likes? There are hot heads in every era and country, so I wouldn't mind some background on the matter in this debate.
So the ancient thought didn't classify the world according to looks but according to essences. The prof knew this well enough and I believe used it accordingly.I hardly see ground for comparison, as I know no evidence of rohirrim-supremacist philosophy. Independent, yes; but not ubermenschen, or whatever the appropriate title would be.
but do you think that the Rohirrim did recognise them as sentient people? No, the core of my argument is Tolkien's statement that the drugs weren't recognised as such, at least as long as there were attacks . Afterwards, yes; they were able to see their crafts and abilities, as apparent from Elfhelm's words.

[Nogrod]

May I ask where this idea appears, during which period it was representative of the greeks, and the likes? There are hot heads in every era and country, so I wouldn't mind some background on the matter in this debate.
Sorry, I'm in a hurry right now although we might continue this later... But you might start by reading Aristotle (not normally seen as a hothead I think - but as a fairly good representative of his times). :)

[Elmo]

I hardly see ground for comparison, as I know no evidence of rohirrim-supremacist philosophy. Independent, yes; but not ubermenschen, or whatever the appropriate title would be. Well they had that hatred of Dunlanders, like Helm's slaying of that guy who 'men said had much Dunlendish blood'. Oh my Eru he had Dunlendish blood! That must make him a really bad person. A good enough reason to kill him for wanting his son to marry your daughter...

[davem]

There's a difference between not knowing & choosing not to know.

Now, none if this is to imply that the Rohirrim were the M-e equivalent of the Nazi Party. They were a basically decent, honourable people, but nonetheless they were far from perfect in their attitudes to the other inhabitants of their land. I think Tolkien wanted to the reader to understand that they are not a 'modern' people, & that their outlook & attitude as regards other races was very much as Nogrod implies.

No race is entirely perfect in Tolkien's world - the Elves had their 'embalming' tendencies, the Gondorians were backward looking & obsessed with their own sense of superiority, the Hobbits were parochial in the extreme, the Dwarves extremely materialistic & the Rohirrim's attitude to other races is not all it should be (to put it mildly).

Yet, by the end of LotR the Elves have accepted that their time in M-e is over & have made the decision to let go, the Gondorians under Aragorn & Faramir have begun to look to the future & realise that other cultures are not necessarily 'less' than they are, the Hobbits have begun to open up to a wider world (for all that they have to be protected by Argorn's ruling), the Dwarves (as typified by Gimli) are beginning to realise that there are greater treasures than gold & jewels, & the Rohirrim have realised that those they thought of as 'sub human' are actually just like they themselves. It is actually a very hopeful way to end the tale.

Yet it is hopeful because we see these changes - that those races are growing & leaving behind their faults. To deny those faults ever existed actually removes that sense of hope in the ages that will follow...

[Raynor]

Well they had that hatred of Dunlanders, like Helm's slaying of that guy who 'men said had much Dunlendish blood'. Oh my Eru he had Dunlendish blood! That must make him a really bad person. A good enough reason to kill him for wanting his son to marry your daughter...Your statement is misleading. Helm didn't strike Freca because he hand Dunlendish blood, but because he came with "many men" to claime the hand of his daughter and he afterwards insulted and threatened the king for refusing.

[Lalwendë]

I never argued they were thick enough to be intolerant about people. Only that they were thick enough not to recognise drugs as sentient beings.

It's the same thing.

I think Tolkien has firmly grasped hold of the concept of the 'Noble Savage' with the Drugs. This is not so fashionable today, as it is a view seen as slightly patronising towards native and tribal peoples, but it had been around for a long time. This is the view that native people live a simple life in harmony with the earth and that their very simplicity can teach us a thing or two. Which they do with the Rohirrim. In so many ways they prove themselves to be better than them and they teach them a valuable lesson.

Maybe after the war they return and give lands back to the Dunlendings and after Eomer learns his lessons from Gamling he learns to treat his near neighbours as human as much as himself. They are a culture on the cusp of becoming literate, and at the verge of becoming fully civilised.

The interesting thing is the resemblance they do bear here to the real Anglo-Saxons who arrived here and immediately fell to practices such as apartheid in an attempt to drive/wipe/breed the Britons out. And its also interesting how much Tolkien loved Welsh, the modern descendant of the old languages of the Britons (including Cymric), languages which to the Anglo-Saxons, Normans and all further invaders were to be driven underground or wiped out. Tolkien would have personally found an attitude like the one expressed by Eomer unforgivable.

[Raynor]

It's the same thing. Before I comment on the difference between cognitive and moral abilities, let me get this straight: do you actually mean this??

Tolkien mentions in UT people who thought that Drugs were creatures of Morgoth (with no special refference to the Rohirrim) or those who maintained that "there had been a remote kinship, which accounted for their special enmity; Orcs and Drugs each regarded the other as renegades [Author's note]". It is also worth mentioning that UT it is stated the Anglo-Saxon root of Puckel-men means "goblin, demon". It would seem that Tolkien took care in presenting the drugs and their culture in a rather unfavorable light, even if only through the eyes of other races.
They are a culture on the cusp of becoming literate, and at the verge of becoming fully civilised.Wit their low nativity rate and with many of their women unwed, I find that hard to believe. Their life style, of living in tents, caves and shelters, isn't indicative of that either.

[davem]

It would seem that Tolkien took care in presenting the drugs and their culture in a rather unfavorable light, even if only through the eyes of other races.

Maybe he was just pointing up the other races' stupidity, narrow-mindedness & basic bigotry?

Wit their low nativity rate and with many of their women unwed, I find that hard to believe. Their life style, of living in tents, caves and shelters, isn't indicative of that either.

I think all this could actually be put down to their being a dispossessed folk who had been driven to live in the wilds. Effectively, they are refugees. I certainly can't see the Rohirrim allowing them decent land to live on. You seem to be blaming them for a situation that was forced on them by the incoming Rohirrim.

[Raynor]

Maybe he was just pointing up the other races' stupidity, narrow-mindedness & basic bigotry?I would say this would be an attack on his own premise for this world. Here, beauty is associated with goodness. Varda is not just a good valar; her beauty is too great to be declared in words; Ungoliant is not just evil, she is a hideous spider. Luthien isn't just the only one who can, arguably, single-handedly out-wit and out-power Melkor, she is the most beautiful of Eru's children. Melkor and Sauron, as they become more evil, they become more hideous. The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case.
You seem to be blaming them for a situation that was forced on them by the incoming Rohirrim.No, because they were apparently living like this, "content", ever since they were co-habitating with the folk of Haleth. It seems this is their 'natural' way of life.

[davem]

I would say this would be an attack on his own premise for this world. Here, beauty is associated with goodness. Varda is not just a good valar; her beauty is too great to be declared in words; Ungoliant is not just evil, she is a hideous spider. Luthien isn't just the only one who can, arguably, single-handedly out-wit and out-power Melkor, she is the most beautiful of Eru's children. Melkor and Sauron, as they become more evil, they become more hideous. The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case.

Well, I could come back with Annatar, point out that the Elves were accused of considering themselves morally superior to other races & being 'embalmers', that Hobbits were not beautiful, but plain looking & Frodo's statement that if Aragorn really had been a servant of the enemy he would have 'looked fairer & felt fouler'.

I'm not sure about this - it seems highly morally questionable - the Woses were hunted & killed because they were ugly, secretive & wary?

No, because they were apparently living like this, "content", ever since they were co-habitating with the folk of Haleth. It seems this is their 'natural' way of life.

This seems like Rohirrim propaganda. How else could they have 'chosen' to live considering they had been dispossessed & driven into the wilds?

[Raynor]

the Woses were hunted & killed because they were ugly, secretive & wary?I guess I will have to restate my opinion several times in this thread. The exact cause of the attacks is not known. Tolkien states that the drugs weren't recognised as humans. These are, more or less, the facts. What I added to them was presenting various circumstances that could have misled any judgement of their race by an uninformed observer. When Merry hears them talking, he thought it was drums he was hearing; their laughter is a gurgling noise; their looks are unpleasant (I accept your points on fairness). Other, more "civilised" features is the use of poisonous arrows and the transfer of magic to objects. These times of deceit and fear, with the enemy always working to spread lies (isn't that Melkor's most powerful weapon?); people of the same race have been turned against each other from the beginning - even more against other races, or races displaying questionable features or behaviours. People of good moral standing have been constantly deceived. What I am saying is that we have much too little information and way too many signs of evil interference to assign moral blame.
This seems like Rohirrim propaganda. Concerning events of the First Age??

[Lalwendë]

*smashes head against wall*

Before I comment on the difference between cognitive and moral abilities, let me get this straight: do you actually mean this??

You're alright, you can leave the 'comment', as I don't really go in for being patronised, especially not early in the mornning.

Wit their low nativity rate and with many of their women unwed, I find that hard to believe. Their life style, of living in tents, caves and shelters, isn't indicative of that either.

I'm talking about the Rohirrim.

I would say this would be an attack on his own premise for this world. Here, beauty is associated with goodness. Varda is not just a good valar; her beauty is too great to be declared in words; Ungoliant is not just evil, she is a hideous spider. Luthien isn't just the only one who can, arguably, single-handedly out-wit and out-power Melkor, she is the most beautiful of Eru's children. Melkor and Sauron, as they become more evil, they become more hideous. The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case.

Sorry. Not that clear cut I'm afraid. There are far too many examples of when characters misjudge by appearances, so Tolkien clearly did not equate beauty with goodness and he clearly did ask us to examine our own prejudices.

In fact if Tolkien did not do this then he was a racist, propounding racist values and none of us should be reading his books. I'm not sure why you are trying to gather up evidence which excuses characters from and condones their indulging in racist and prejudiced behaviour? Are you Michael Moorcock by any chance?

[Raynor]

You're alright, you can leave the 'comment', as I don't really go in for being patronised, especially not early in the mornning.I was and am genuinely puzzled by your idea. I apologise if my comment was out of line. So, I am curious, where do you draw the line between human and non-human?
In fact if Tolkien did not do this then he was a racist, propounding racist values and none of us should be reading his books.I am not saying, or believing, that racism is ok, not here, not there. I was arguing about making mistakes in extraordinary times, in a world where deceit and division was one of the highest objectives of a present mythological evil. As Tolkien stated in the letters, everyone is subject to error in Ea, even the valar.

[Rhod the Red]

"The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case."

Thankfully we don't have to face such terrible flaws in our world, lesser ones currently call attention, But the arrangements Tolkien has is both consistant with the real world and sophisticated enough for the storylines to be very interesting.

[davem]

Concerning events of the First Age??

Well, it wouldn't be the first time old beliefs were used to justify questionable practices.

[Raynor]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time old beliefs were used to justify questionable practices.That is a possibility; although I find this depiction as consistent with the little information we gather about the drugs in LotR. Moreover, I don't see the Rohirrim as influential as to distort the lore of the past ages in other cultures as well.

[davem]

I am not saying, or believing, that racism is ok, not here, not there. I was arguing about making mistakes in extraordinary times, in a world where deceit and division was one of the highest objectives of a present mythological evil. As Tolkien stated in the letters, everyone is subject to error in Ea, even the valar.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of justifying racism, but this does open up a wider question, in that fiction is not reportage, & when a writer introduces these kind of situations into his work he must have a reason even if he doesn't have an agenda.

When Tolkien presents us with members of one culture hunting down & killing another, judging the other culture as 'beasts', he is either saying this kind of behaviour is wrong, or he is saying it is acceptable. Now Tolkien is very clear about good & evil within M-e - he makes moral judgements regarding the behaviour of Morgoth, Sauron, the Ringwraiths, Orcs & other servants of evil - he condemns their behaviour out of hand.

So, when we are presented with the Rohirrim's behaviour as regards both the Woses & the Dunlendings we require him to present just as clearly his position on that. Therefore, he must either state that it is wrong or that it is fine - it cannot merely be 'understandable in the circumstances'.

Personally, I feel he does make clear his position - which is that the behaviour of the Rohirrim is wrong - he may not say it in so many words, but in the way he presents Ghan & the Woses in LotR & in the words of Gamling, he shows up the Rohirrim (or at least their leaders) as a people who were ignorant & cruel at times, & who saw the two races who inhabited their land as 'sub human'. Now, I could see Eomer & Erkenbrand hunting the Woses to their deaths, but not Gamling, because Gamling knows more than his Lords. His words to Eomer regarding the Dunlendings would be completely unnecessary if Tolkien believed that the Dunlendings were 'subhuman'. In fact Tolkien's own tale 'The Faithful Stone' confirms that he didn't see the Woses in the way the Rohirrim did.

The great danger is that we take a simplistic 'good' guys vs 'bad' guys approach, & decide, well, the Rohirrim were 'good' & therefore they had no faults & thus were not capable of 'racism', or at least of 'cultural supremicism'. Their treatment of the Woses cannot be put down to their seeing them as 'animals' - which they clearly are not - animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows. Clearly then, while they may hunt them like animals, they must realise they are not animals.

So, could it be they believed that they were servants of the enemy? I doubt it. Clearly the Woses do not behave like Orcs, or look like them. In fact, in order to hunt anything (animal or human) effectively the hunter needs a thoroughgoing knowledge of his 'prey'. And from Ghan's words its plain that we are not talking here about the odd isolated incident but a systematic policy of hunting down & killing the Woses.

I don;t see any way around this - Eomer typifies an attitude - because however 'wild' the Dunlendings may look they could not be mistaken for 'animals' - yet Eomer states clearly that 'animals' is how he sees them. If he will not acknowledge the humanity of the Dunlendings it is hardly surprising he will not acknowledge the humanity of the Woses. Yet this is clearly a choice he makes.

But, as I stated, by the end of the story he has come to acknowledge the Woses as 'human' beings.

Of course we see the same kind of 'racism' displayed by the Numenoreans in regard to the inhabitants of Endor, & this 'attitude' of cultural supremicism runs right down the ages of Arda, with races claiming the moral high ground & using, abusing & often killing those of a 'lower' race.

As I stated, I think Tolkien meant to depict this kind of behaviour as racist & as morally wrong. I don't think we can deny it is there.

[alatar]

animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows. Clearly then, while they may hunt them like animals, they must realise they are not animals.
Recently it's been observed that some chimpanzees (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253810,00.html) have used crude spears for hunting, yet many people (with the exception of Richard Dawkins) would consider this species 'animal.' However, like chimpanzees, even if the Woses were 'animals,' why, exactly were they hunted? I'm guessing not for food, as no one is observed salivating at the sight of Ghân-buri-Ghân, nor for territory, as the Drúadan Forest did not seem the type of place that the Rohirrim preferred. Maybe the Gondorians hunted them while traversing the Woses' lands early in the Third Age (and before), as they were a nuisance, but not sure why the Rohirrim did unless it were for sport, which to me is more orc-like than not.

The statues of the Púkel-men, lining the road to Dunharrow, show that at one time men knew more about these mysterious creatures than in latter days.

Note that there's no discounting the works of Saruman and Sauron, which may have flamed the estrangement of these peoples.

[Raynor]

When Tolkien presents us with members of one culture hunting down & killing another, judging the other culture as 'beasts', he is either saying this kind of behaviour is wrong, or he is saying it is acceptable.Orome and his host were hunting down fell beasts, as his fight against evil and I know no incrimination of him. So this sets a precendent of a way to combat evil.

The Eldar hunted the petty dwarves, seeing them as dangerous beasts, which attack them. I am not aware that their actions, as long as they didn't know about the dwarves (which happened later) are incriminated anywhere. Do you think the Eldar did a wrong thing?
but not Gamling, because Gamling knows more than his Lords.Then again, one should ask if Gamling really recognised the voices of the dunlendings when they were making their war cries, most likely together with the orcs, or if he simply presumed they were there, knowing of their alliance. My impression is that the later happened. .
Their treatment of the Woses cannot be put down to their seeing them as 'animals' - which they clearly are not - animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows. This presumes they knew that; we have no such evidence. We have zero evidence of what happened then. I don't see what relevant conclusion we can draw, besides noting a tragedy.
Clearly the Woses do not behave like Orcs, or look like them. How many other races use poisoned darts? Chris doesn't rule out their likeliness; after mentioning the idea of orcs being related to humans, he quotes the description of Ghan: "Hh is described as having a scanty beard that "straggled on his lumpy chin like dry moss," and dark eyes that showed nothing"; previously, it was stated that their eyes are red when angry. I don't have a description of orcs handy, but perhaps it would help if someone could present it.
In fact, in order to hunt anything (animal or human) effectively the hunter needs a thoroughgoing knowledge of his 'prey'.I think you are describing an ideal "hunt". Again, we really don't know the context of the attacks.
And from Ghan's words its plain that we are not talking here about the odd isolated incident but a systematic policy of hunting down & killing the Woses.If you are intent on speculating on a passing refference, then just as well there may have been no casualty. There is zero evidence either way. Can't we accept that? This is leading nowhere.
because however 'wild' the Dunlendings may look they could not be mistaken for 'animals' - yet Eomer states clearly that 'animals' is how he sees them.He doesn't "see" them actually. He hears war cries, most likely mingled with the orcs's. He doesn't know there are any Men there; he simply makes remark on what he hears.
But, as I stated, by the end of the story he has come to acknowledge the Woses as 'human' beings. Where is it stated that Eomer viewed them otherwise anytime??
Note that there's no discounting the works of Saruman and Sauron, which may have flamed the estrangement of these peoples.This is one thing that the critics of the rohirrim don't seem to want to take into account. Also, I would go further than saying they simply flamed the enstrangement.

[alatar]

This is one thing that the critics of the rohirrim don't seem to want to take into account. Also, I would go further than saying they simply flamed the enstrangement.
Not exactly sure what you mean (as I'm just entering this discussion), but just because a Wizard or other prattles on in your ear, it doesn't mean that you have to listen. I only note the involvement of Saruman/Sauron as there is historical precedent (i.e. Freca, if I have that right).

[davem]

Scene: Edoras before the departure for Helm's Deep. Eowyn takes her brother aside for a final heart to heart....

Eowyn: You know, that's the thing I don't really understand about you, Eomer.
You're a professional soldier, and yet, sometimes you sound as though
you bally well haven't enjoyed soldiering at all.

Eomer: Well, you see, sis, I did like it, back in the old days when the
prerequisite of a Rohirric campaign was that the enemy should under
no circumstances carry bows -- even spears made us think twice. The
kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with
dry grass.

Eowyn: Now, come off it, brother -- what about Druadan Forest, for heaven's sake?

Eomer: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand Druadan warriors
armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle,
instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad....

[Raynor]

Not exactly sure what you mean (as I'm just entering this discussion), but just because a Wizard or other prattles on in your ear, it doesn't mean that you have to listen. I only note the involvement of Saruman/Sauron as there is historical precedent (i.e. Freca, if I have that right).Lies have been used to corrupt maiar, to kindle strife among the noldor, and to bring about the fall of Men. It is even mentioned in the Silmarillion that Melkor dispersed his might through lies too - that must account for something, seeing that he falls from being the most powerful vala to less than a maia ("Sauron was 'greater', effectively, in the Second Age than Morgoth at the end of the First" ~ Myths Transformed). Melkor sow deceit of "old and ever anew", which bears fruit as long as Arda lasts.

[Lalwendë]

Getting back to the point and using the examples I've found (I will have a deeper look into RotK as soon as I can), something emerges. In the Barrack Room Ballad we hear the voice of the ordinary soldier, the one who actually gets out there and does the fighting in the modern world. He gives his respect for the opposing warrior as a fighter, now although we don't really see this from the leaders in LotR, we do see it from the foot soldiers. As shown by Gamling's deeper understanding of the Dunlendings. He recognises them as a people unlike his leader Eomer, he knows their language and what they say in direct contrast to Eomer's blatant and blinded prejudice.

Actually this recalls Tolkien's own role in war as a signals officer. He would have known and understood different methods of communication and language in contrast to his superiors who would not; his role would have been very much like Gamling's, to interpret and ultimately to correct his superiors.

Also from seeing the responses of Sam and Frodo, another two very low ranking individuals without leadership responsibilities, we see that it could indeed be the more 'humble' involved in this war who do show respect to their enemies. That's in contrast to Eomer's derogatory comments and the disrespectful killing games of Legolas and Gimli. I suspect that if we dig down and look at the words and actions of some of the 'foot soldiers' we might see some different responses. Just like it's a couple of Hobbits who 'save' Middle-earth, not Gandalf or some high-falutin' Elf, it's the ordinary soldiers who view the enemies as people whereas their leaders see them merely as smelly, animalistic obstacles.

It seems as the story develops we see changes happening, the Rohirrim for example moving forwards from their prejudiced ways into learning to accept other races, even enemy ones, which would eventually lead in to the more modern way of viewing an enemy as not merely something almost inorganic to be slaughtered but as a fellow human who deserves respect even in the fury of war. Rather like the move Tolkien saw from the sheer brutality exercised by Nazi leaders against their enemies to the standard of respect for POWs hoped for under the Geneva Convention.

[Raynor]

He recognises them as a people unlike his leader EomerDo you have any idea how a dunlendish war cry sounds? Do you have any proof that a dunlendish war cry is significantly different from that of an orc war cry (or that the difference would be perceptible from any distance)? Do you have any evidence that Eomer was aware of all these? Because if you don't know these, your presumption is unwarranted, and I will point this to you everytime you state this as anything else than a personal opinion.

Even if dunlendish cries are different from orc cries, you would still be making two errors of reasoning:

- fallacy of division: Eomer described how that group in the night sounded; to say that what he thought of the group is what he also thought of part of the group, without evidence of this, is erroneous reasoning.

- false dillemma: the fact in itself that a person recognises that another group (most likely) intentionally makes savage sounds doesn't exclude that the person in question doesn't have racial attitude towards that group - unless there is additional evidence, of which I know none. This in itself is not a qualifier.
the Rohirrim for example moving forwards from their prejudiced ways into learning to accept other races,Without proper evidence, we can't say that the rohirrim were more prejudiced against the woses (if that is what you are reffering to) than another group of people would have been in their place. This is an "argument from ignorace", a fallacy.
which would eventually lead in to the more modern way of viewing an enemy as not merely something almost inorganic to be slaughtered but as a fellow human who deserves respect even in the fury of warIs there any evidence of events at the time of LotR when the enemies should have been given more respect, or when there was unnecessary harm done?
the disrespectful killing games of Legolas and Gimli.But is heroic lore that proclaims the values of champions, in relation to how many enemies they stopped (I am being polite here), wrong? Aren't the noldor celebrated in the songs of their people for how many enemies they defeated (and I presume the same is true for the dwarves)?
Are the words of Gimli and Legolas any worse than the words of Aragorn who says "depart, or not one of you will be spared; not one will be left alive to take back tidings to the North"?
Is it wrong to equate value in battle with how many enemies you defeat? And if not, is it wrong to declare value in battle?
Just like it's a couple of Hobbits who 'save' Middle-earth, not Gandalf or some high-falutin' Elf, it's the ordinary soldiers who view the enemies as people whereas their leaders see them merely as smelly, animalistic obstacles.I presume you are reffering to orcs. Do these hobbits view, behave towards, or describe the orcs in a more favorable light than Gandalf or the elves?

[davem]

Do you have any idea how a dunlendish war cry sounds? Do you have any proof that a dunlendish war cry is significantly different from that of an orc war cry (or that the difference would be perceptible from any distance)?

Well, clearly they are distinguishable from a distance because Gamling recognises them from the same distance away as Eomer:

"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun," said Gamling. 'And neither will the wild men of the hills. Do you not hear their voices?"

"I hear them," said Eomer; 'but they are only the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts to my ears."

Even if dunlendish cries are different from orc cries, you would still be making two errors of reasoning:

Again, they must be different from Orc cries because Gamling distinguishes between them.

- fallacy of division: Eomer described how that group in the night sounded; to say that what he thought of the group is what he also thought of part of the group, without evidence of this, is erroneous reasoning.

So Eomer was commenting on the enemy's skill in making farmyard noises, & his comment was not meant perjoratively?

- false dillemma: the fact in itself that a person recognises that another group (most likely) intentionally makes savage sounds doesn't exclude that the person in question doesn't have racial attitude towards that group - unless there is additional evidence, of which I know none. This in itself is not a qualifier.

I don't think we're dealing with 'racism' in the modern (specifically the post Nazi) sense, but an attitude - Both Woses & Dunlendings are 'savages', not fully human, & therefore to kill either is not the same as killing a human being in the eyes of the Rohirrim. The Dunlendings sound like 'animals', the Woses both look & sound like 'animals', hence neither merits being treated like humans. Clearly there has never been any attempt at raprochement in the 500 years since the Rohirrim took over Calenardhon, & the Dunlendings, having been dispossessed of their lands, have been left to try & survive for the whole of that time.

Of course, the Rohirrim are a very narrow minded bunch - Fangorn may be on the borders of their land, & Lorien not too far distant, yet they are as dismissive of the idea of 'walking trees' as any Hobbit, reject Galadriel & the Elves as 'net weavers & sorcerers' & Hobbits as figures out old stories. Basically, whe confronted with anything 'out of the ordinary' their response seems to have been to disbelieve it if they could & to attempt to destroy it if they couldn't.

And it seems they themselves were hardly viewed as ideals of virtue - the suspicion that they were in league with the enemy must have come from somewhere & had some justification. The Rohirrin were an illiterate people, handy in a fight, but hardly the most intelligent, compassionate or enlightened group in M-e.

As Faramir states:

"For so we reckon Men in our lore, calling them the High, or Men of the West, which were Numenoreans; and the Middle Peoples, Men of the Twilight, such as are the Rohirrim and their kin that dwell still far in the North; and the Wild, the Men of Darkness. 'Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us, enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them, and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts.

The Gondorians are falling from their 'high' status to the 'middling' status of their nothern neighbours, but the Rohirrim are becoming more enhanced in arts & gentleness - which statement clearly implies that they were not always so, but also makes clear that the influence of Rohan on the Gondorians is to make them esteem war & valour above other things - things that had a higher value in the past.
[

[Raynor]

Well, clearly they are distinguishable from a distance because Gamling recognises them from the same distance away as Eomer:Good point. I have looked over the HoME VIII version of the story; there, the unpleasantness of the dunlendish language is even more apparent. Aragorn notes that "once it was accounted good to hear", while Gamling says that "now it is used in deadly hate". I for one believe that there is plenty of evidence that Eomer's description was accurate.
his comment was not meant perjoratively?No, I don't think so.
The Dunlendings sound like 'animals'...hence neither merits being treated like humans.In what instance were the dunlendings not treated like humans? I mean, other than the passing comment on war cries that we are nitpicking for over 2 pages. Also, it wasn't the fact that the dunlendings sounded like animals that started the wars, but because they insulted and threatened the rohirrim king, invaded Rohan when it was also attacked from the East, enslaved and slain its people. To say that it was an "attitude" at play, is to discount history.
Clearly there has never been any attempt at raprochement in the 500 years since the Rohirrim took over CalenardhonI disagree; the actual feud started when Freca came to Helm's council. At that time, he was allowed to have wide lands and his own stronghold. Even though he paid no heed to the king, he was still called to his councils. This happened ~250 years after the rohirrim came to Calenardhon. It was about that time Freca insulted Helm and threatened him, even though it was apparent he was his subject.

[davem]

I for one believe that there is plenty of evidence that Eomer's description was accurate.

But he didn't say 'I hear some very angry people' - he said 'I hear animals'

Also, it wasn't the fact that the dunlendings sounded like animals that started the wars, but because they insulted and threatened the rohirrim king, invaded Rohan when it was also attacked from the East, enslaved and slain its people. To say that it was an "attitude" at play, is to discount history.

If you break in & occupy my house & force me to live in my garden shed & I smash the windows, am I smashing your windows or my own? I don't see how the Dunlendings can be accused of 'invading' what was technically their own land.

I disagree; the actual feud started when Freca came to Helm's council. At that time, he was allowed to have wide lands and his own stronghold. Even though he paid no heed to the king, he was still called to his councils. This happened ~250 years after the rohirrim came to Calenardhon. It was about that time Freca insulted Helm and threatened him, even though it was apparent he was his subject.

And Gamling has another version:

Not in half a thousand years have they forgotten their grievance that the lords of Gondor gave the Mark to Eorl the Young and made alliance with him.

The feud had its origins in the fact that the Dunlendings were dispossessed of their own lands. If I was Freca, finding myself being 'given back' something that was taken from me by the representative of the very person who stole it from me I'd be pretty narked.

[Raynor]

But he didn't say 'I hear some very angry people' - he said 'I hear animals'And if that is how it genuinely sounded to him, what is the problem? Can you somehow disprove that he exagerated the unpleasant effect it had on his ears?
If you break in & occupy my house & force me to live in my garden shed This completely contradicts the description of Freca's situation:
He grew rich and powerful, having wide lands on either side of the Adorn. [It flows into Isen from the west of Ered Nimrais.] Near its source he made himself a stronghold and paid little heed to the king.There is no evidence that the rohirrim dislodged anyone, or that they hindered the people living there. In 2510 the people of Calenardhon already dwindled, due to the attacks of the balchoth; their weakness was obvious when the orcs and the wild men attacked Calenardhon and overran it. The rohirrim proved themselves worthy in battle and helpful to the king. Given Gondor's situation - attacked by corsairs in the south and the fierce people who were under "wholly under the shadow of Dol Guldur" in the north, the rohirrim were the best choice to ensure peace and prosperity in that land; the original people weren't able (or willing?) to fight that evil. It is apparent that the dunlendings had prosperity and were allowed even to govern themselves, as late as 2754 - until they decided that good was not good enough.

[davem]

And if that is how it genuinely sounded to him, what is the problem? Can you somehow disprove that he exagerated the unpleasant effect it had on his ears?
This completely contradicts the description of Freca's situation:
There is no evidence that the rohirrim dislodged anyone, or that they hindered the people living there. In 2510 the people of Calenardhon already dwindled, due to the attacks of the balchoth; their weakness was obvious when the orcs and the wild men attacked Calenardhon and overran it. The rohirrim proved themselves worthy in battle and helpful to the king. Given Gondor's situation - attacked by corsairs in the south and the fierce people who were under "wholly under the shadow of Dol Guldur" in the north, the rohirrim were the best choice to ensure peace and prosperity in that land; the original people weren't able (or willing?) to fight that evil. It is apparent that the dunlendings had prosperity and were allowed even to govern themselves, as late as 2754 - until they decided that good was not good enough.

Seems they were both strong (& therefore a threat) - Freca is 'powerful' - & at the same time his people had dwindled & their 'weakness' was obvious. Then we have Freca with a stronghold of his own & at the same time we're told that his people had 'always' lived a nomadic existence in the wilds even back into the First Age.

Aparently like they were 'weak' & useless when it was necessary for the Rohirrim to take over Calenardhon & strong & powerful whenever they defied the Rohirrim.

And let's not forget that the Gondorians only 'owned' Calenardhon because they took it.

[Raynor]

his people had dwindled & their 'weakness' was obviousHm, where is it stated that at the time of Freca they dwindled or weakened?

[davem]

Hm, where is it stated that at the time of Freca they dwindled or weakened?

In an earlier post I noted:

I think all this could actually be put down to [b]their being a dispossessed folk who had been driven to live in the wilds]/b]. Effectively, they are refugees. I certainly can't see the Rohirrim allowing them decent land to live on. You seem to be blaming them for a situation that was forced on them by the incoming Rohirrim.

& you responded:

No, because they were apparently living like this, "content", ever since they were co-habitating with the folk of Haleth. It seems this is their 'natural' way of life.

So it seems you are arguing that

a) the Dunlendings chose to live in the wilds, scratching an existence, were weak & unable to defend themselves or their land (& you note that this situation holds right back into the First Age),

& b) that at the time of Freca (ie post the occupation of Calenardhon by the Rohirrim) they had not dwindled or become weak & presumably therefore posed a threat to the Rohirrim.

I'm merely pointing out that logically they can't have been a weak, helpless minority living in the wilds right back into the First Age, & also have been a powerful settled (Freca has a fortress) in the Third Age.

Hence, as I stated, they seem to be 'weak' & not much use when it is necessary for the Rohirrim to take over Calenardhon, but whenever their presence becomes a 'nuissance' they suddenly become a 'serious threat' which must be removed by all means possible.

Anyway, as this part of the discussion seems to be going around in circles, I'd like to widen it a bit.

Do we see different attitudes to 'the enemy' among different races?

Also, I was thinking about the attitude of Hobbits to the Big Folk. It seems that in the Shire Men are seen almost, but not quite, as enemies. They are at the very least seen as a potential threat. Even the term 'Big Folk' seems to be used perjoratively, & they are percieved as enough of a threat post the War of the Ring that they have to be banned from entering the Shire (further Hammond & Scull give a note from Tolkien about the possible fate of Hobbits - they dwindled & diminished & were possibly hunted almost to the point of extinction by Men), yet in Bree Hobbits & Men live happily together.

Of course the Shire Hobbits seem suspicious of any other race (& of anyone like Bilbo or Frodo who has anything to do with them), & one wonders how much it would take ffor them to declare Elves & Dwarves persona non grata. Elves & Dwarves perceive each other as enemies for most of their history, & I'm not sure either group would praise the courage of the other.

We seem to have a lot of alienation among all races - its not simply suspicion of the stranger in most cases, but almost as if they are actively looking for a justification to class another group as an 'enemy'. And if we add to this the fact that once a group is declared to be 'enemy' they are shown no respect at all by the majority of their opponents we can speculate that Fighting the Long Defeat is an attitude that may have become so entrenched in common thought that they are actually looking for a fight in many cases.

The history of Arda seems to be a history of suspicion, of classifying the 'other' as enemy, & attempting to wipe him out.....

[Raynor]

I'm merely pointing out that logically they can't have been a weak, helpless minority living in the wilds right back into the First Age, & also have been a powerful settled (Freca has a fortress) in the Third Age.Well, I don't see a problem in that. But the problem I do see is that I was reffering to the woses there, and you are using that statement in refference to the dunlendings. Am I correct in my guess that you are confusing woses with dunlendings?

[davem]

Well, I don't see a problem in that. But the problem I do see is that I was reffering to the woses there, and you are using that statement in refference to the dunlendings. Am I correct in my guess that you are confusing woses with dunlendings?

I think things may have got confused - which can happen when one is taking part in a three handed conversation. I was focussing on the Dunlendings, Lal was focussing on the Woses, & I think you were fighting a battle on two sides.

That said, I don't see that the Dunlendings were a 'civilised' culture - it seems to me that they were living a very basic existence, & Eomer's confounding them (or even just their war cries) with animals does not speak to their being an enemy on the cultural or technological level of the Rohirrim. Hence it would seem that either they were originally a 'higher culture' which had descended into barbarism, or they never attained the level of civilisation even of the Rohirrim .

I think that what we know of the Dunlendigs & their history leads towards the latter assumption.

[davem]

I think things may have got confused - which can happen when one is taking part in a three handed conversation. I was focussing on the Dunlendings, Lal was focussing on the Woses, & I think you were fighting a battle on two sides.

That said, I don't see that the Dunlendings were a 'civilised' culture - it seems to me that they were living a very basic existence, & Eomer's confounding them (or even just their war cries) with animals does not speak to their being an enemy on the cultural or technological level of the Rohirrim. Hence it would seem that either they were originally a 'higher culture' which had descended into barbarism, or they never attained the level of civilisation even of the Rohirrim .

I think that what we know of the Dunlendigs & their history leads towards the latter assumption.

And, again, I'm not sure this is going anywhere. I think there is an interesting debate to be had on the wider question of the way enemies are depicted & percieved in M-e, but the focus here has become too narrow & is not shedding much light on the original topic, so perhaps we both need to leave this particular issue where it is & look at the wider question?

[Lalwendë]

Of course, the Rohirrim are a very narrow minded bunch - Fangorn may be on the borders of their land, & Lorien not too far distant, yet they are as dismissive of the idea of 'walking trees' as any Hobbit, reject Galadriel & the Elves as 'net weavers & sorcerers' & Hobbits as figures out old stories. Basically, whe confronted with anything 'out of the ordinary' their response seems to have been to disbelieve it if they could & to attempt to destroy it if they couldn't.

Even Aragorn is forced into having to show Eomer who he is; of course at this point he is all apologies. ;) Tolkien was again developing the character through reported speech instead of interior monologue.

And it seems they themselves were hardly viewed as ideals of virtue - the suspicion that they were in league with the enemy must have come from somewhere & had some justification. The Rohirrin were an illiterate people, handy in a fight, but hardly the most intelligent, compassionate or enlightened group in M-e.

Yet the intelligence of Gamling shows they could change, as they do by the end of the story; they are very much like the pre-Literary Saxons in this respect, moving from being mere mercenaries into being an established culture. I've wondered about Faramir's words before now, and now I can see what he meant, that the Rohirrim were not as developed in their attitudes as the Gondorians were. Of course the Gondorians' ancestors were the Numenoreans who allegedly have shared Numenor with a few of the Woses (fate unknown) so they have the knowledge of these people. There's something sad in what Faramir says, that the Gondorians in a way are in danger of descending to the level of some of the unenlightened Rohirrim.

I'm beginning to wonder if the escape of Merry and Pippin was not just necessary from a plot point of view in that they eventually meet with Treebeard, but that they also had a lucky escape as they also risked being hunted down by Eomer's men! ;)

[Raynor]

perhaps we both need to leave this particular issue where it is & look at the wider question?I agree; unless someone brings something new to that part of discussion, I believe we all said what could have been said.
Also, I was thinking about the attitude of Hobbits to the Big Folk. It seems that in the Shire Men are seen almost, but not quite, as enemies. They are at the very least seen as a potential threat. Even the term 'Big Folk' seems to be used perjoratively, & they are percieved as enough of a threat post the War of the Ring that they have to be banned from entering the ShireThe apparent deterioration of this relation was noted in HoME XII:
With Men of normal stature they recognized their close kinship, whereas Dwarves or Elves, whether friendly or hostile, were aliens, with whom their relations were uneasy and clouded by fear. Bilbo's statement that the cohabitation of Big Folk and Little Folk in one settlement at Bree was peculiar and nowhere else to be found was probably true in his time (the end of the Third Age); but it would seem that actually Hobbits had liked to live with or near to Big Folk of friendly kind, who with their greater strength protected them from many dangers and enemies and other hostile Men, and received in exchange many services.

[davem]

With Men of normal stature they recognized their close kinship, whereas Dwarves or Elves, whether friendly or hostile, were aliens, with whom their relations were uneasy and clouded by fear. Bilbo's statement that the cohabitation of Big Folk and Little Folk in one settlement at Bree was peculiar and nowhere else to be found was probably true in his time (the end of the Third Age); but it would seem that actually Hobbits had liked to live with or near to Big Folk of friendly kind, who with their greater strength protected them from many dangers and enemies and other hostile Men, and received in exchange many services.

Tolkien's speculation on the final fate of the Hobbits is interesting.

The much later dwindling of Hobbits must be due to a change in their state & way of life; they became a fugitive & secret people, driven as Men, the Big Folk, became more & more numerous, usurping the more fertile & habitable lands, to refuge in forest or wilderness: a wandering & poor folk, forgetful of their arts & living a precarious life absorbed in the search for food & fearful of being seen; for cruel Men would shoot them for sport as if they were animals. In fact they relapsed into the state of 'pygmies'. The other stunted race, the Druedain, never rose much above that state.(quoted in Hammond Scull LotR Readers Companion)

The Hobbits 'relapse' into the state of pygmies - a state which the Druedain never 'rose much above'.

It seems to me that this whole idea of 'cruel men hunting members of the 'pygmy races' for sport as if they were animals refers back to what we are told of the hunting of the Woses by the Rohirrim. In fact what Tolkien states here about the Hobbits being dispossessed of their land, forced to try & survive in the wilds & being hunted for sport could be applied directly to the Woses. The Hobbits, in short, are driven back to the stone age by incoming Men.

It seems the Hobbits' survival was dependent on Men's protection (one could say the same about the Woses) & that if their ultimate fate was as Tolkien here speculates (of course, one cannot rule out the possibility that he wrote the above on a day when he was a bit depressed) the 'Big Folk of friendly kind' who defended them against 'hostile men' seem either themselves to have disappeared, or forgotten about them.

What we seem to have in Tolkien's statement about the fate of the Hobbits is another warning about the danger of judging by appearances. The Woses were hunted because they looked ugly & inhuman - & it seems that the Hobbits, once driven to the point of having to struggle to survive in the wilds, found themselves in the same position - they would have looked like 'animals' & they would have been hunted.

[Lalwendë]

I was thinking about how we aways draw parallels with WWI but Tolkien was actually writing LotR during WWII, a very different kind of conflict, one on a global scale and one which brought unimaginable horrors. The ways people reacted to these horrors were not always with 'respect' for the enemy, due to some of the things which the enemy did which were beyond the pale. Many Jewish people say they simply cannot forgive what happened during WWII, it's just not going to happen. In LotR we don't see the enemy forces doing the kinds of things which were done during WWII, but these enemies are painted in that kind of light at times, as though they have gone beyond the pale.

What brought me to thinking about this was my dad was telling me the story of a friend of his who was involved in the liberation of Belsen. He was very young, and a bulldozer driver, so you can imagine which task eventually fell to him. But when they first arrived at the camp, apparently it could be smelled from miles away due to the mounds of thousands of corpses left lying around, sometimes in the same bunks as the living. What had been highly disciplined units broke down pretty quickly in the face of this unimaginable horror - the officers simply could not exercise the same discipline over men who were facing such scenes.

The Nazis running the place were still there and were brutally treated by the Allies; some of them kicked to death by Allied soldiers, most of them made to bury disease ridden corpses with their bare hands so that many of them died themselves from typhus; this was done as 'punishment' to deliberately demean and harm the camp staff as there were so many bodies they simply had to be bulldozed into the burial pits. Then the Allies went into the neighbouring villages and forced the local people at gunpoint to march into Belsen and see for themselves the corpses and dying people; they were forced from their homes and all their possessions taken away - the Allied soldiers helped themselves to what they wanted and moved the prisoners from the camp into the houses. The ordinary locals were given no help and made to march out of the area, homeless and with only what they were wearing.

That struck me as very brutal. These people may indeed have known what was happening up the road, but could not say anything as they were also living in fear of a brutal regime. Why then were they punished? The answer is that this was a reaction to something so extreme the Allies could not comprehend how someone could not say or do anything about this horror on their doorstep. That when confronted with an extreme, discipline goes out of the window.

We aren't told what Sauron's forces do, but we must imagine it was something as equally brutal to provoke our heroes to treat the Orcs without respect. We know they are not mere robots or monsters, as Tolkien shows us Orcs chatting about retirement, just as Men might, but like the Nazis, they have been brainwashed and subject to fear which has resulted in brutality in war being 'normal' for them.

So there it is, I think the enemy of LotR stems from a very different era to the enemy of Kipling's day. These enemies are not the ordinary soldiers of WWI but the products of a brutal regime, moulded to be cogs in the machine of killing and the violent, unhinged reactions of our heroes might just be the inevitable human response of soldiers in the face of unimaginably brutalised and hence brutal enemies.

[alatar]

But he didn't say 'I hear some very angry people' - he said 'I hear animals'
This got me to thinking of a piece by Edgar Allan Poe, which surely you're all familiar with, found here. (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/poe/works/murders.html)


"That was the evidence itself," said Dupin, "but it was not the peculiarity of the evidence. You have observed nothing distinctive. Yet there was something to be observed. The witnesses, as you remark, agreed about the gruff voice; they were here unanimous. But in regard to the shrill voice, the peculiarity is not that they disagreed --but that, while an Italian, an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Hollander, and a Frenchman attempted to describe it, each one spoke of it as that of a foreigner. Each is sure that it was not the voice of one of his own countrymen. Each likens it --not to the voice of an individual of any nation with whose language he is conversant --but the converse.
Did Eomer, when describing the voices of the Dunlanders, have no better reference? The voices did not sound like those from Mundburg, were not speaking 'Common,' and did not sound orcish. How else would one so young and of so little worldy experience have described a new and strange tongue?

Add to this the fact that these Dunlanders were, at the moment, attacking, and that Eomer may have been somewhat tired from the events of recent days. One could then conclude that Eomer wasn't making any statement on race, but how the sounds sounded at that moment to his ears.