Aragorn's political skills.

[Boromir88]

Does it take more then a "right" to the throne to actually take the throne? What I mean is, in politics, a key is the support of the people. And how do you get that support, through your battle experience. For example the successful General Earnil II, or even the Rohan Marshal Eomer.

Aragorn had the proof he needed to take the throne, but does it take more then that? And does Aragorn know this, which is why he so strategically places when it's right to "claim the throne?"

We get to see in Arvedui's experience that it does take more then proof to take the throne. He clearly had the evidence it took to claim the throne, but the Council of Gondor denied him. In comes the Stewards, was there a bit of pressure from the stewards? And the reason Arvedui wasn't able to take the throne was because the lack of support from the people.

Let's look at Aragorn's case, it starts out similar to that of Arvedui's. He joins the Fellowship, to head to Minas Tirith with Boromir. He feels that the visions he saw ment it was his time to go to Gondor and claim the throne.

Now in one of Tolkien's earlier drafts, Boromir doesn't die, and he goes to Minas Tirith with Aragorn. Aragorn takes claim to the throne, Boromir objects, and starts brewing a Civil War. Aragorn then kills Boromir. Tolkien threw out this idea, but there could be some importance.

I would tell you what "Aragorn's political skills" did to help him become king without any resistance, but I want to hear some more ideas, then I will get to mine. So have at it....hopefully. Was it Aragorn's political skills that truly helped him become king? More so then his "right" to the throne?

[Nimrodel_9]

Aragorn then kills Boromir.

Nooooooo!!!

I think it was kind of both. He had a right to the throne, and unless the people "attack" him and throw him out, they can`t really stop him from becoming king.

Few people in Gondor know Aragorn, and so they don`t know what kind of leader he is. I believe that when he led them to the Black Gate, they saw that he was useful in war. Other than that they don`t really know much about him, and just have to trust that he will be a good political leader.

I`m having trouble wording. Hope that made sense.

[Boromir88]

I`m having trouble wording. Hope that made sense.

Course it did .

Few people in Gondor know Aragorn, and so they don`t know what kind of leader he is. I believe that when he led them to the Black Gate, they saw that he was useful in war.

I definately would agree, The Black Gate victory got Aragorn the support he needed. Showed everyone he was a capable leader and fighter. Which I ask, do you have to be a "successful" warrior to hold high political office? Boromir was High Warden of the White Tower (I love that fancy title), Elrond and Galadriel have already shown their capabilities...etc.

I think another fancy move by Aragorn was when Imrahil asked for him to enter the city and claim the throne, he did not, he camped outside.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

...And how do you get that support, through your battle experience. For example the successful General Earnil II, or even the Rohan Marshal Eomer...

...I definately would agree, The Black Gate victory got Aragorn the support he needed. Showed everyone he was a capable leader and fighter. Which I ask, do you have to be a "successful" warrior to hold high political office? Boromir was High Warden of the White Tower (I love that fancy title), Elrond and Galadriel have already shown their capabilities...etc.

Being a successful general means nothing if you do not possess the loyalty and allegiance of an army to back your claims to any royal station. Historical personnels like Alexander, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte understood well that without true military muscle, lineage and popularity meant nothing.

Alexander was able to retain hegemony of the League of Corinth due to his alacrity and the Macedonian Army, Caesar was emperor in all but name because he had the backing of his legions and Bonaparte was in his own words, raised to the imperial seat by his soldiers. It did help that each three were astute demagogues in their own right, but without true military power they would have been nothing.

That said, having an army under your command does not bestow upon you the necessary credentials either. Witness the fate of Albrecht Wallenstein, arguably the best commander of the imperialist forces during the Thirty Years War. With a string of impressive victories under his belt and at times possessing the largest standing army in Europe, this mercenary captain was did in by his own subordinates who were bribed by the imperial seat in Wien. The main cause of his downfall was that unlike the above three, Wallenstein had not made himself indispensable to the army for its own well being. Alexander turned native Macedonian sheep herders and craftsmen into lords of asia, legionnaires that followed Caesar were far wealthier than other plebians of their time and the Grande Armee plundered Europe in a scale that was mindbogging. All three armies understood that without their respective leaders, they could not have enjoyed what they have acquired. This clientele system was the basis of any great military leader with higher aspirations.

As for control of the masses, it is worth noting that the big three at all times governed civilian populations that far out numbered their army or even native population. They keys to their sucesses were reputation, alacrity and astute administration. When Alexander approached Babylon and Persepolis, the inhabitants chose to open their doors to him with the fates of Gaza and Tyre in mind. Ditto for Rome and the other italian cities when Caesar started his civil war campaigns, out of fear of what he did to the Gauls during their revolt and where the Grande Armee marched, the populations dared not resist because of the reputation of Bonaparte and the power of his army. That is the power of reputation, but only enforcible with a strong army to back with. Speed was also a key component in controling the masses because it left them helpless with no options nor united cohesion and history shows that when that happened, the masses yield to pressure. The first two components yield control of the masses to the great captain generals, but to maintain or even increase this grip, good administration was required. The civilain population must be made to believe that they were better off with the conqueror and his army lording over them than the previous occupying power. The answer was to grant thme their needs and later, wants. If the population was starving, feed them. If the population wanted peace, give it to them. And when the bare essentials of social security were in place, try to enhance their standards.

In the case of Aragon II, he had no standing army to back him in a clientele system and so was in a position Wallenstein was in. He procrastinated in entering the center of power which would have given his opponents the time to unite and gather resources to oppose him. And lastly he decided on a battle that was even riskier than Napoleon's 1812 Russian invasion, Alexander's Indian expedition and Caesar's planned attack on Parthia. In all he went against the teachings of the great three and if he was in the real world, he would have suffered a crushing defeat, an ignominious end and eternal condemnation by scholars of history. But hey, it's Tolkiens fantasy! If he wanted Aragon II to sprout wings and fly, the later would.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

In the case of Aragon II, he had no standing army to back him in a clientele system and so was in a position Wallenstein was in. He procrastinated in entering the center of power which would have given his opponents the time to unite and gather resources to oppose him. And lastly he decided on a battle that was even riskier than Napoleon's 1812 Russian invasion, Alexander's Indian expedition and Caesar's planned attack on Parthia. In all he went against the teachings of the great three and if he was in the real world, he would have suffered a crushing defeat, an ignominious end and eternal condemnation by scholars of history. But hey, it's Tolkiens fantasy! If he wanted Aragon II to sprout wings and fly, the later would.

Hey, they all would have died anyway if Frodo hadn't succeeded.

[Lyta_Underhill]

All three armies understood that without their respective leaders, they could not have enjoyed what they have acquired. This clientele system was the basis of any great military leader with higher aspirations.

Of course, Aragorn did have the support of the entire Kingdom of Rohan and their legions, as well as the endorsement of the Prince of Dol Amroth, who was to rule as Steward in the stead of Faramir when the latter was injured and in the Houses of Healing. He is also credited with the healing of Faramir, who is beloved of all in Minas Tirith, soldier and civilian alike. I always found it extraordinary that Aragorn, unlike a harsher military leader, did not chastise those soldiers who did not have the heart or strength to fight at the Black Gate, but instead allowed them to save face by turning them to the task of retaking the lands lost in the previous battle. The way I see it, to agree with Neurion above, without Frodo's success, it doesn't matter whether Aragorn is king of Gondor and Arnor or not. But his humanity will still be weighed in the balance, and not be found wanting. He acts in a way that puts humanity above the mere realm of Gondor and in this, reflects Faramir's assertion to Frodo with regard to the Ring, that he would not take it even if Minas Tirith were to fall.

An apt quote of Letter 183 as well, SPM, and there does seem to be a consciousness on Aragorn's part that he must have support; however, that support will not be bought at the price of inhumanity to a single person. It is refreshing to see such scrupulous integrity, and I can understand why it would be astronomically improbable in the "real world." Therefore, I avoid real people and talk to Ents!

Cheers!
Lyta

[obloquy]

Haha, hilarious avatar, Nimrodel. Nice.

[Nimrodel_9]

I think another fancy move by Aragorn was when Imrahil asked for him to enter the city and claim the throne, he did not, he camped outside.

I completely agree. Loves my Arry...

Thanks obloquy! I also loves Dom.

[Lush]

The thing about Aragorn is, he is capable of practicing patience and restraint just as well as he is capable of kicking butt. Aragorn is subtle, which is the hallmark of any great politician. Some might even say that his initial refusal to claim the throne following Imrahil's request is a nice bit of manipulation on his part. He doesn't want to seem as though he is taking the throne away from anyone, thus creating ill will. He doesn't want to impose. He's the good guy, wisely biding his time.

[the phantom]

Was it Aragorn's political skills that truly helped him become king?

Well, lemme see here.... how did old Strider win the support of the people of Gondor?

Aragorn served under Denethor's pop as Thorongil, right? Wasn't he loved by both the steward and the people at that time?

I wonder how many people supported Aragorn because he was Thorongil, who was supported by their parents or grandparents?

Or did anyone even know this?

And he also healed people, including Faramir (who everyone seemed to love). That earns some support.

Plus he had the friendship of Gondor's greatest ally, Rohan (or more specifically, Eomer).

And he rescued Minas Tirith from Sauron's forces. That couldn't have hurt people's opinion of him.

He was also supported by the Prince of Dol Amroth. Sort of like when a candidate gets an endorsement.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Which I ask, do you have to be a "successful" warrior to hold high political office?

I don't know if it is that simple. If a leader has triumphed through combat, he is showing his people that he will not only put his life on the line for the good of the many, but that he will do it and live. That's a nice thing to look for in a leader.

BUT, here's what just came to me. Aragorn's leadership versus Denathor's. Although Denathor *could* fight, and no doubt kick some serious behind, he chose not to. As he put it:

[Sauron] will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling. Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons?

I won't dispute that Denathor was a good leader, but he's not particularly "the people's leader". He uses his people as weapons, without ever putting himself in the same amount of danger.

One of the Gondorians' first visions of Aragorn is like everyone else has said: He personally led his people to The Black Gate; straight to the doors of the enemy, with the thought (or at least appearance) that if everyone was going to die to save Gondor (yes, and the world), that it was his place to die with them, fighting to protect them.

Are a group of people more likely to follow a good leader (with proper claim) who is willing to let them die, or to follow a good leader (also with proper claim), who is more likely to go out and fight right next to them?

Fea

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Does it take more then a "right" to the throne to actually take the throne? What I mean is, in politics, a key is the support of the people. And how do you get that support, through your battle experience. For example the successful General Earnil II, or even the Rohan Marshal Eomer.

I love the fact that this sounds like "real" history.

[Eruanna]

Does it take more then a "right" to the throne to actually take the throne? What I mean is, in politics, a key is the support of the people. And how do you get that support, through your battle experience.

Not just through experience in battle. Although traditionally a king is meant to be a warrior he is also expected to show great wisdom and a sense of justice.

I think that the fact that Aragorn fulfilled a prophecy is one of the reasons that he was accepted by the people of Gondor, they were longing for their king's return, after the troubles of recent times they looked to him as their saviour:

" Upon the formost ship a great standard broke...There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count..."

We must also not forget the fact that kings are traditionally meant to have the power of healing. In medieval times, being touched by the king himself or even his garment was believed to be the cure for a variety of diseases.

"The hands of the king are the hands of a healer. And so the rightful king could ever be known"

So says Ioreth, and after seeing Aragorn perform his healing ability on both Faramir and Eowyn, she is convinced and begins to spread the word.

"And soon the word had gone out from the House that the king was indeed come among them, and after war he brought healing; and the news ran throughout the city."

The people didn't just have to take Ioreth's word for it either. They had living proof in the form of their beloved Faramir.

[eowyntje]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Now in one of Tolkien's earlier drafts, Boromir doesn't die, and he goes to Minas Tirith with Aragorn. Aragorn takes claim to the throne, Boromir objects, and starts brewing a Civil War. Aragorn then kills Boromir. Tolkien threw out this idea, but there could be some importance.

how extremely extremely interesting Do you know any more about this ealier draft?

As for Aragorn, there are, es explained by many in this topic, a lot of reasons to think he would be a good king. But most are based on what he did before he was king. Maybe a gudgement on his political qualities canbe made by looking at his time as King of Gondor.
How much is known about Aragorn's rulership once has was on the Throne of Gondor? All I could find on this is that he Reunited Arnor and Gondor, but i know nothing of the political matters surrounding this case. (I have no quotes, but some of this matter is described in the Encyclopedia of Arda, http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default...dyofrohan.html)
Also thee is mention that he enforces a law that forbids men to enter the shirt, (and obeyed this law himself)
How much else is known about Aragorns actions while he was king?

((please forgive me my spelling mistakes or ill structures sentences, I am still learning english))

[Boromir88]

I think some other smart moves done by Aragorn that haven't been mentioned yet, is actually his humility he shows to Boromir.

Aragorn's claim is brought out in the Council, and although Boromir hasn't yet accepted Aragorn as King he admits that Gondor is in some desperate times and the "sword," would be of some great help. He is yet unsure of Aragorn, however. Aragorn knowing this, plays humility towards Boromir, trying to win Boromir's trust. Knowing that Boromir may very well be the most prestigious man in Gondor. His title is "Captain-General of Gondor's forces." In common day terms that would be like "Commander-in-chief." And supported by Denethor it is not him who leads his men, he sits back in his hall, and leaves the leading up to his sons (at first mostly Boromir, then once he's dead Faramir). Also, Boromir is to be the future Steward of Gondor. Aragorn recognizes if his claim is to fall through he will have to get the approval of the Steward, as well as some of Gondor's most prestigious men.

So what does Aragorn do? He shows humility and actually takes orders from Boromir. On Caradhras Boromir says he and Aragorn will carry the Hobbits, Aragorn possibly in an attempt to buddy up to Boromir, doesn't object, and out of the respect of Boromir's status, listens.

[eowyntje]

In another topic, Elianna quoted this part from the end of part II of Appen, I've never read it but thought it was in interesting quote considering this topic:

Often he fulfilled it. For though Sauron had passed, the hatreds and evils that he bred had not died, and the King of the West had many enemies to subdue before the White Tree could grew in peace. And whenever King Elessar went with war King Éomer went with him; and beyond the Sea of Rhûn and on the far fields of the South the thunder of the calvary of the Mark was heard, and the White Horse upon Green flew in many winds until Éomer grew old.

It seems Aragorn fought a lot of wars when he became King Elessar. so this 'perfect' leader may have been wise and all, but he did not mind going to war once in a while.
Also, it says that the King of the west had many enemies to subdue before the white Tree could grow in peace, apparently Aragorn's firts years as a king were anything but simple and peacefull.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think some other smart moves done by Aragorn that haven't been mentioned yet, is actually his humility he shows to Boromir.
~~~~~~
So what does Aragorn do? He shows humility and actually takes orders from Boromir. On Caradhras Boromir says he and Aragorn will carry the Hobbits, Aragorn possibly in an attempt to buddy up to Boromir, doesn't object, and out of the respect of Boromir's status, listens.

Very politically wise moves, but sometimes I have to wonder if political wisdom isn't just plain common sense. And Aragorn's humility might be just that, genuine humility. After all, humility is one of the great Christian virtues, and Aragorn, as one of Tolkien's most admirable characters, would be well endowed with some of those virtues. Humility is one, maybe?

And what Boromir suggests on Caradhras is just plain common sense. He, a soldier, sees a situation in need of remedy, makes a suggestion to rectify that is fully sound, and Aragorn goes along with it because it is just plain common sense to do so.

In this way, he is very UN-political. Imagine, say, that the Parliament is stuck on Caradhras and has to make their way down. The conservative leader suggests that the strongest men go force a path through the snow, and then come back to help the weaker members through. What would happen then? Would the liberal leader agree to this sensible suggestion. I doubt it... If it was like a meeting of Parliament, then he would likely object just because it was a conservative who suggested it, even though it might be plain common sense to do it.

Perhaps Aragorn's wisdom is as much that he knows when NOT to get political as it is that he is able to function politically when it IS necessary.

[Boromir88]

Great point formendacil, never looked at it that way before, but I couldn't agree with you more .

Eowyn:

how extremely extremely interesting Do you know any more about this ealier draft?

It is very similar to the Arvedui claim, if you are familiar with it. Aragorn goes to Gondor with Boromir, and like Arvedui, claims kingship. Boromir objects and tries to brew up a civil war, telling people to object against Aragorn's claim. Then Aragorn has to go and kill him before too much trouble occurs. In Arvedui's case, he claimed the throne, the Council (led by the Steward Pelendur) rejected his claim (which he clearly had proof), and out of that broke the kin-strife (a civil war). That's what Boromir attempted to do, to start a civil war, but was killed before he got too much support.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Somehow, I can't seem to place Boromir as the rebellious kind:

Boromir, five years the elder, beloved by his father, was like him in face and pride, but in little else. Rather he was a man after the sort of King Earnur of old, taking no wife and delighting chiefly in arms; fearless and strong, but caring little for lore, save the tales of old battles

Of course, this version of him may have been chiselled to perfection after long discourse... But if I am to judge Boromir's character simply by his actions and thoughts in the book, I still would not be able to place him as a rebel...

His brother, of course, is another story...