The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

While I agree in a general sense with their desire to feel honored in the halls of their fathers, could you provide some specific instances of suicidal action on their part.

Eowyn.

Ok. Take Eomer's reaction at finding Theoden & Eowyn on the field - Death, Death, Death, Death take us all. And all the Riders take up the cry. Rohan's is a 'death &/or glory' culture, very like that if the dwarves. Their concern is less with living a happy, peaceful life, as going down doing something heroic & having a song written about it.

Aragorn and Company were there for a specific reason to do exactly as they did. Pride did not drive them there as much as necessity. Something needed to distract the Eye. Fighting him on his doorstep was the best means of keeping his attention away from the inside of his house.

Well, that's why they went there, but once they've seen Frodo's gear, & are facing (apparently) inevitable defeat, they decide to stand & fight anyway, rather than either surrender, & live to fight another day, or stage a tactical retreat, regroup, & make an organised assault on Sauron later. Aragorn decides to throw away his own life & the lives of his major allies - Eomer & Gandalf.

He does not do what Beorhtnoth does because Beorhtnoth could have achieved a decisive victory by force of arms through fighting like a sensible general. Aragorn could not win by force of arms. He was endeavoring to do his part in a plan to defeat Sauron in which arms were a distraction away from the real issue.

But Anglo-saxon generals weren't 'sensible'. It was about more than simply winning, it was about winning honourably. Beortnoth believed, & so did his people, that a victory gained dishonourably was a moral defeat, & that it was better to go down fighting & win the moral victory. Turin wins a 'moral' victory over Morgoth in that sense, as does Feanor - they never choose the 'sensible' option if that means letting the enemy win even a small victory. Viewed from our, 'sensible' 21st century position, their actions seem gross & ridiculous, as well as callous in their disregard of others. But lets not forget that no-body has to go along with them. Something in them, in their ofermod is darkly attractive - something in all of us has felt that way at some point - 'I know its stupid, I know I'm going to suffer for it in the end - its not 'sensible', but I'm just not going to take this **** from that ***** any longer!'

While this is true to an extent, it would be better to have heroes to inspire future generations to act in a temperate manner. These sorts of heroes have a way of coming to bad ends and taking a lot of people with them.

Yes, but unfortunately, we're humans, & temperate manners don't inspire us -
Tolkien quotes Chesterton in the Fairy Stories esssay - something along the lines of Children like fairy stories where the villain is put to death, or suffers some horrible fate, whereas we adults feel uncomfortable with those outcomes. Chesterton says its because Children are innocent & prefer justice, while we adults are wicked & therefore prefer mercy.

Turin & Feanor simply never give in, & if they have a choice of losing the battle but winning the moral victory or winning the battle 'sensibly' but losing the moral victory, they'll choose the former, because its not just about who's standing at the end of the fight. Its about never crawling, never begging, never giving your enemie a moment's peace, & never letting him forget you - you're the thorn in his side. You're going to stand & fight honourably, so that in the end if you do win, you can say I won by right, not by cunning, or because I had the advantage of the higher ground. You thereby deprive your enemy of any excuse. He, & everyone else, will know you won because you were a true warrior, & the best one on the day.

[Saraphim]

Several of you have mentioned Feanor, and his own pride and burning desire to never surrender, even in the face of certain death.

But what about his half-brother? Fingolfin, becoming so fed-up (for lack of a better term) with evil, and having lost most of his people in the Battle of Sudden Flame, an act that was unexpected and the opposite of chivalrous, decided to march (alone, mind you) straight to Angband to do single combat with Morgoth.

Fingolfin no doubt knew the odds that were stacked against him. He must have known that the Valar had all, at one point or another, fought Morgoth, and only just managed to hold him captive.

Any way you look at this, it is a suicidal mission. A single elf going against the most powerful creature in Arda.

And yet he went.

I don't think this is chivalry. I don't think this follows what some of you have said about the quest for glory, even though by that act Fingolfin won about as much honor as could be won. This was heroism, but it was also a sense of protection.

Fingolfin went, knowing he would most likely not come back alive. He went in the hope that somehow, he would save his people, who had already done so much for him by following him out of Valinor and into an uncertain fate.

I think the tale of Fingolfin is much better told in poetic for, as in The Lays of Beleriand than in the paragraph form of the Sil.

This could be something right out of Beowulf:

...He was crushed, but not conquered yet...

When Morgoth's foot came crashing down, Fingolfin knew he was going to die. But in a last attempt, he took up his sword and gave his foe a limp for the rest of his life on Middle-Earth.

It was this, and the seven scars that the elven-king left as well, that Morgoth would remember. Fingolfin had died, but there were more out there with the same courage, and Morgoth would remember that.

In conclusion, Fingolfin was full of ofermod, and his actions had good effects, and did not harm anyone else but him.

[Kuruharan]

Rohan's is a 'death &/or glory' culture, very like that if the dwarves.

I beg your pardon?

Eowyn (Eomer) and Fingolfin

I’m going to deal with both of these at once because they are rather similar in my mind (sort of).

Eomer reacted in a passion during a period of intense stress. Such things are a natural part of combat. This in no way indicates that Rohan had a cultural policy of foolhardy battle-mania wildly driven on by unchecked pride. As I noted above, Theoden (who died in a way befitting a hero of that mode) never displayed that type of behavior. If he had he would have bravely charged the army guarding the road rather than chicken-heartedly going through Druadan Forest

In conclusion, Fingolfin was full of ofermod, and his actions had good effects, and did not harm anyone else but him.

Fingolfin just sort of snapped. After the crushing defeat in the Battle of Sudden Flame, he just went a little funny in the head. Note the words “a great madness of rage was upon him.” I don’t believe that chivalry or pride had much to do with what happened. He just went crazy.

Anglo-Saxons

But Anglo-saxon generals weren't 'sensible'. It was about more than simply winning, it was about winning honourably. Beortnoth believed, & so did his people, that a victory gained dishonourably was a moral defeat, & that it was better to go down fighting & win the moral victory.

If I wanted to be flip I would suggest there to be a strong correlation between this and the reason why they ultimately fell (or, in fact, fell several times). However, I have too strong a sense of history. The Anglo-Saxons were not as simple as that and they were not lacking in an appreciation of practical results as compared to moral victories, in spite of what their literature could lead one to think.

While this is probably not the place to discuss this at length, but just to provide a few instances:

King Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Stamford Bridge caught King Harald Hardrada with his pants down (or more accurately, with his chain mail off) and Harold singularly failed to do the honorable thing and allow the Norse to retire to the other side of the bridge, bring up reinforcements, and get their armor on before he pounced upon them.

King Alfred at the Battle of Edington not only sensibly snuck up on the enemy at dawn, but he seized the high ground and attacked the Vikings by charging down the hill to give his men the best advantage. That doesn’t sound terribly sporting to me.

in their ofermod is darkly attractive

Perhaps these types of characters are best used to inspire people when they need to do something that must be done that (hopefully) cannot be avoided or dealt with in a better way. Perhaps it can even be used when the people in question are actually operating from an advantage.

Aragorn and Company

& live to fight another day, or stage a tactical retreat, regroup, & make an organised assault on Sauron later. Aragorn decides to throw away his own life & the lives of his major allies - Eomer & Gandalf.

They could not retreat. They would easily be overtaken and surrounded. Once they were there they had little choice but to continue their little diversion on to the end. They would all have been killed anyway, in very unpleasant ways if they had surrendered.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Perhaps these types of characters are best used to inspire people when they need to do something that must be done that (hopefully) cannot be avoided or dealt with in a better way. Perhaps it can even be used when the people in question are actually operating from an advantage.

And that's it - the 'evolutionary advantage' if you like. Putting aside their actual behaviour & focussing on their literature, we have to say that the AngloSaxons held ofermod in higher esteem than the kind of 'cunning', logical behaviour in the examples you gave of actual battles. I'm not sure if there are songs or poems about Harold's or Alfred's exploits, but I suspect if there were they would depict them as displaying reckless courage over tactical cunning.

Eomer reacted in a passion during a period of intense stress. Such things are a natural part of combat. This in no way indicates that Rohan had a cultural policy of foolhardy battle-mania wildly driven on by unchecked pride. As I noted above, Theoden (who died in a way befitting a hero of that mode) never displayed that type of behavior. If he had he would have bravely charged the army guarding the road rather than chicken-heartedly going through Druadan Forest

Well, I suspect that if Theoden had 'bravely charged the army guarding the road rather than chicken-heartedly going through Druadan Forest' (& won) he would have been held in even higher esteem than he was, & if his forces had been totalled by Druadan ambush in the forest, he would have been condemned for his 'cowardice' in refusing battle on the road.

But I can only cite Faramir's words to Frodo (don't have the quote to hand) about the Rohirrim being 'middle men' who held feats of arms & martial glory as things to be admired, & how even the Gondorians esteemed such things above music & lore.

Once they were there they had little choice but to continue their little diversion on to the end. They would all have been killed anyway, in very unpleasant ways if they had surrendered.

I don't see this - Sauron had offered them terms of surrender - he wanted control, he wanted slaves, & he wanted that as quickly & easily as possible. I think if they had surrendered he would have accepted that, if for no other reason than that if he had taken their surender & then slaughtered them then everyone else in the west would have fought to the death, & it could have taken his years to achieve victory - indeed, it would have increased his chances of ultimate defeat - even with the Ring we can't be sure that he could hold back the whole of the people of the West, if they were certain that he would slaughter them if they surrendered.

[Bêthberry]

But I can only cite Faramir's words to Frodo (don't have the quote to hand) about the Rohirrim being 'middle men' who held feats of arms & martial glory as things to be admired, & how even the Gondorians esteemed such things above music & lore.

Perhaps if you scrolled back up to post #3, davem, you would see that the quote is at hand.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Perhaps if you scrolled back up to post #3, davem, you would see that the quote is at hand.

Erm, yeah

My only excuse is that I was posting before rushing off into work & didn't have time to check board or books.

As an aside, has anyone checked whch are the most often quoted sections of LotR on the Downs? Or have we got most of the book here, scattered across the various threads?

[Kuruharan]

This has become a pretty broad thread.

I'm not sure if there are songs or poems about Harold's or Alfred's exploits, but I suspect if there were they would depict them as displaying reckless courage over tactical cunning.

I’m sure there are. I am tragically unfamiliar with them, or at least I’ve forgotten reading about them. I know that Alfred’s story in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (an account which he was so thoughtful to sponsor for us) portrayed it as being more of a rags-to-riches story more than anything else.

Harold’s victory at Stamford Bridge is so overshadowed by his defeat at Hastings that perhaps not as much attention was paid to it by the English. There is a saga about the death of the Norwegian Harald. That one is certainly steeped in the traditional heroic mode, although (as usual) over the course of his life Harald did a number of things that according to that mode were decidedly unheroic.

Anyway…

Well, I suspect that if Theoden had 'bravely charged the army guarding the road rather than chicken-heartedly going through Druadan Forest' (& won) he would have been held in even higher esteem than he was, & if his forces had been totalled by Druadan ambush in the forest, he would have been condemned for his 'cowardice' in refusing battle on the road.

Possibly no and probably yes. (Confusing enough?)

If he had defeated the army on the road his own force would have been in such shambles as to be no use in relieving the siege of Minas Tirith. Theoden clearly possessed a strong sense of purpose in what it was he was trying to do and what was needed in the situation.

Yes, if he’d been ambushed and wiped out to the last man in the woods it would not have been good.

I don't see this - Sauron had offered them terms of surrender - he wanted control, he wanted slaves, & he wanted that as quickly & easily as possible.

Sauron was a pathological liar. Note the bit about “faithless and accursed.” Under no circumstances could the leadership of his enemies be allowed to escape or live. They could be the source of much trouble later. If I’d been Sauron I would certainly have killed them as quickly as possible. And why spare the army when a tremendous massacre could be used to inspire terror. I’d almost have rather that they fought so that I could give them a good trouncing and cripple the morale of the survivors on the other side of the river. Remember these were his enemies in arms that had marched right up to his gate.

Double Anyway…

Perhaps something about the appeal of ofermod is it attempts to provide comfort for the loss of family and friends. It is perhaps easier to accept if they died in a Thermopylaesque bout of over-heroics rather than as a result of “dear old Beorhtnoth was an overheated twit who did not understand his business.”