Dunedain policy vis-a-vis hobbits: wise or flawed?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

At The Council of Elrond Aragorn says:

If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lenghened and the grass has grown.

This seems a clear allusion to the Dunedain policy of policing outside Bree and
the Shire (and more?)by keeping out threats while those protected were
unaware of their efforts or the extent of possible dangers.
Question: was this a wise policy? I'm not sure myself. You can see plusses and
minuses to this policy. Hobbits did fend off wolves in the Long Winter and orcs
(led by the Bullroarer) at the Battle of Greenfields, and, of course, The Scouring
of the Shire. With Ranger assistance they could have been a significant local force, but.....
1) might this new military presence have drawn attention to them?
And 2) More pertinent to Aragorn and the Dunedains' philosophy, might this have changed the very nature of hobbits and their land (in Vietnam War terms
"destroying the village [philosophically, not literally] in order to save it"?

An analogy could be the U.S. since the onset of the Cold War (c. 1948). Before
that the U.S. seemed to have an almost hobbitish inclination to shun the rest of
the world and turn inward after a war. But with an increasing belief in the
importance of a strong standing military [long before 9/11] and attachment to
what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex" seems to have come a
marked decrease in toleration for dissent and other views (such as pacifism),
which Tolkien noted in one of his Letters (about Tom Bombadil?) was an
admirable concept, if not always a feasable option. This is not to say that
military preparedness (and even in rare cases preemptive action)
may be necessary, but consider the absence of any real argument
questioning an essentially strongly militarized political diplomacy of the U.S. in
the world (including both Democratic and Republican expressed views, although
I personally consider the Democratic views more nuanced and less extreme).
Another example of military power use seeming to coursen outlooks could be the
British, French, Belgian (and others, including the U.S. in the Philippines) seeming
to become inured to using military force in their colonies (and for that matter, the
Dunedain of the Second Age in Middle-earth--- the latter an example of "all power
corrupting")?

If a similar result to some of the above would have eventuated in the Shire
then were the Dunedain correct? Although it seems instinctively that it would have been more advisable to have acquainted hobbits and Breefolk more with
the reality of the political situation in the late Third Age. And Bree, for one,
seemed remarkably unprepared to deal even with a modest increase in
refugees. Was any realistic alternate policy available?

P.S. This isn't intended as a political diatribe, just using what seem to me to be
possibly relevant examples to illustrate the theme considered (how should a
relatively weak polity be assisted).

[Child of the 7th Age]

Tuor -

Very good question! I have trouble relating this to 20th and 21st century politics, so please excuse me if I come at this from a different angle. My gut reaction is to say that, despite their concerns for the Hobbits and the desire to protect them from dangers, the Dunedain were wrong when they tried to shield the Shire from knowledge of the outside world.

One of the core problems in the Shire through much of the Third Age and continuing into the Fourth was Hobbit insularity. In Unfinished Tales, Gandalf complains about the settled ways of Hobbits and says they have lost the adventuring spirit. This is the main reason he was so pleased when he first met young Bilbo. Bilbo was one of those rare hobbits from the late Third Age who liked tales of dragons and Elves: things that were outside his normal experience. As Bilbo grew older, he succumbed to pressures about him and became more like his neighbors, much to Gandalf's dismay. It was only because he went adventuring that he was saved from his neighbors' fate of dullness and insularity.

If you look at the map of Middle-earth and carefully read the early chapters of LotR, you can see there was actually more contact with the outside in the Shire than most hobbits were willing to admit. The East-West road to the Blue Mountains ran through Shire borders so dwarf travellers were quite frequent. The Dwarves trooping through the Shire even began to speak about the Enemy and the Land of Mordor. Surely any Hobbit who heard such things might have worried that such problems would one day threaten their home. Chapter 2 says even the stay-at-home hobbits had begun to hear 'strange tales' reflective of the wider troubles in the world.

Elves were less frequently seen than Dwarves but they did pass through on the way West. Frodo and Bilbo apparently had no trouble finding Elves on their woodland jaunts, since both Hobbits had at least some skills in Elvish. Some contact with Elves is implied in LotR but even more explicitly mentioned in Unfinished Tales.

In short, the Shire was not isolated: the Hobbits may have wanted it to be, but this may have been as much a defense on their own part as a reality. There were enough visitors for the Hobbits to have some idea of the world outside. The only way they could deal with that outside world was apparently to deny its existence. And the Dunedain encouraged them in this illusion.

The Dunedain's isolationist policy fed into Hobbit insularity. The Dunedain were apparently far more reclusive than either Dwarves or Elves. Frodo and Bilbo each had experience with the latter, but had no idea that Rangers even existed. Moreover, we have Gandalf's word in Unfinished Tales that the Hobbits had not always been so insular. There was a time in their past when some Tookish types were more aware of danger and willing to go adventuring.

Many posters in the chapter-by-chapter discussion commented on Hobbit insularity, but no one alluded to the fact that the Dunedain bear some responsibility for this isolationist attitude. It is one thing to be "isolated" from the outside world so that you do not have to bear the brunt of unrest and invasions. It is another thing to "isolate" your mind so that you try to pretend the outside world doesn't exist. It seems to me that by treating the Hobbits as children, the Dunedain actively encouraged the latter way of thinking.

The thing that bothers me is that Hobbit insularity did not disappear at the end of the War of the Rings. In one respect, it actually intensified. There was a law passed, at the request of the Hobbits and endorsed by Elessar, that forbade Men from ever entering the Shire. Ostensibly this was because of the Scouring: to keep the bad guys from coming back and respecting the Shire's independence. (Even Elessar could not set foot in the Shire but could only go as far as the Bridge. )

But is this the final legacy of the War of the Rings? Is this what we learn from the fellowship and the cooperation of Men, Hobbits, Dwarves and Elves? Is isolation the only way for different free peoples to have peace? To me, this prohibition on Men is nothing more than the continuation of the old Dunedain policy of isolation. Strider the Ranger has become Aragorn the King, and the policy of isolation remains.


I love LotR, but this theme of separation has always disturbed me. We've had other threads on this general topic including one on "gated communities", and I believe Bethberry has also talked about this issue. As far as I can tell, JRRT thought that Elessar's rule regarding the Shire and its exclusion of Men was a good one. I personally have grave doubts, both about the earlier Dunedain policies of treating the Hobbits like children in order to "protect" them and the continuation of those policies as defined by Aragorn, himself once a Ranger.

If Legolas and Gimli can become close friends, if the Dwarves can mine mithril and fashion the gates of Minas Tirith, if Men and Hobbits can live peacefully together in Bree for thousands of years (the Bree of the books, not PJ's dark version), then why can't Hobbits of the Shire and Elessar throw off old ways of thinking and acknowledge that cooperation and helping each other is the best way for the free peoples of Middle-earth to safeguard their freedoms in the Fourth Age?

The two hobbits who broke the stereotype, who were most outward looking, were Frodo and Bilbo. At the end of the Third Age, they must both leave. Despite Frodo's affection for Sam, and leaving aside all questions of healing, I can't imagine Frodo being content to live in a place where not only have the Elves all departed but a Man like Faramir is excluded from even visiting him at Bag-end (the way Bilbo used to have his old buddy Dwarves visit occasionally). Pippin and Merry did keep up friendships with Men in the outside world but they had to travel all the way back to Gondor and Rohan to do so, since such relationships were effectively "forbidden" in the Shire. How very sad!

Just curious, but does anyone else feel this way about the policy and Elessar's failure, or am I the only one?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Very good points, and I must thank you for drawing to my attention a subject which I had never really considered before.

It strikes me that the Men really believed that Hobbits were a helpless race. Completely ill-equipped to deal with fighting and warfare on a large and serious scale. However wise this supposition is it is surely understandable for Kingdoms of Men - even Aragorn's - to regard Hobbits as weak and needy, and that's why they protected them so stubbornly, without regard to logic, or even total respect.

But both sides were happy enough to keep the cycle going.

[yavanna II]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

It strikes me that the Men really believed that Hobbits were a helpless race. Completely ill-equipped to deal with fighting and warfare on a large and serious scale. However wise this supposition is it is surely understandable for Kingdoms of Men - even Aragorn's - to regard Hobbits as weak and needy, and that's why they protected them so stubbornly, without regard to logic, or even total respect.

But both sides were happy enough to keep the cycle going.

Men & Elves obviously underestimated & judged hobbits coz of their shyness & height. they were so proud of themselves & didn't bother the Halflings.

Kawawang mga hobbit....

[Child of the 7th Age]

But what about the fact that the Dunedain policy was actually reaffirmed by King Elessar when he condoned a law that prohibited Men from entering the Shire? Is Tolkien trying to say that this kind of separation of peoples is the only way to maintain peace and ensure independence? If so, I find that unsettling.

[yavanna II]

Well that is after Elessar saw the tough & brave& courageous side of the hobbits.....