[davem]

Obviously, in Middle Earth. war is not only justifiable, but necessary. Fighting the Long Defeat, may be a hopeless prospect, but Tolkien is saying, if that's the only available response to evil, then that's what you have to do, even if all you can hope for are defeats or fruitless victories. If war is inevitable (the alternative being to allow evil to triumph unchallenged) then you fight. But the question then becomes, how do you fight? How do you behave on the field. How are the Rohirrim, with their joy in battle & their contempt of their foes - sticking their heads on spikes - to be judged? As the Bhagavad Gita points out, if a war must be fought, to control, if not to ultimately defeat, evil, then it becomes a matter of how you behave - if you are cruel, if you take pleasure in killing, exult in the suffering of your enemy, what effect does that have on you? What do you become? Look at Feanor, in his insane desire to take revenge on Morgoth & win back the Silmarils. He becomes a monster, killing his some of his own people & leaving others to die.

Clearly Tolkien is making a point about the exhilaration & joy of battle, especially in the description of the charge of the Rohirrim, but through Faramir he condemns it, seeing it as barbaric. Tolkien also makes it clear that such behaviour is suicidal, & that the seduction of the attitude behind the Rohirrim's behaviour is dragging even Gondorians down. The influence of Gondor can raise up the Rohirrim, but the influence of Rohan can corrupt even the 'High' men of Gondor, & he cites the high reputation that Boromir has in Gondor as a great warrior.

Essentially, Tolkien acknowledges the fact of the 'joy of battle', but that is not the same as praising it. The Charge reminds one of the Helicopter attack in Apocalypse Now, with the Ride of the Valkyries blaring out, the 'grunts' singing as they slay. The Rohirrim win the day, so, is Tolkien presenting them as 'heroes'? What if they'd lost - another glorious defeat in a long history of such? Or another example of Ofermod, resulting in another Nirnaeth Arnoediad? Dagor Aglareb & Nirnaeth Arnoediad differ only in their outcome, not in the behaviour of the participants. In other words, we can't judge Tolkien's attitude to war & violence merely on the outcome, which is down to uncontrollable factors. To judge whether a form of behaviour, or a particular action, is good or bad, is being 'praised' or 'condemned' by a writer based merely on the outcome - joy in battle is 'bad' because the result is defeat (Nirnaeth Arnoediad) - joy in battle is 'good' because the result is victory (Dagor Aglareb/pelennor Fields) - is to oversimplify the writer's attitude/philosophy regarding war.

Tolkien doesn't find the idea of war 'honourable', in my opinion. Nor does he find it 'dishonourable'. He acknowledges that both honourable & dishonourable actions occur in war, & that's what should be judged - the behaviour & motivations of the individuals concerned. Judgements based only on how the battle turns out - 'ends justify means' arguments - are not what Tolkien was about. Victory can depend on courage, luck, chance, or 'Grace' (the intervention of supernatural forces - the Eagles of Manwe arriving to turn the tide). Behaviour on the field is to be judged for itself, not for the outcome it leads to.