Aragorn's political skills.

[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

[Lobelia]

I actually did my Honours thesis in English literature on the subject of King Arthur and why he starts off as a heroic warrior and ends up sitting in Camelot handing out knighthoods. The conclusion I drew from my research was that a mediaeval Christian king was not supposed to go out to battle, because of the fact that the land depended on him to stay alive. Yes, I know, I know, there were mediaeval warrior-kings such as Richard the Lionheart. But face it, he was a lousy king, no matter what the Robin Hood movies tell you. I doubt if he would have been considered a good king even in his own time. Now, Aragorn is a warrior, no question about it, but he has spent most of his life as being something other than a King, even if he does have the right to the throne. My guess is that, in the Fourth Age, he would have been concentrating on running his kingdom and delegated the warrior duties to the likes of Faramir. (If I missed some reference to a battle in the Appendices, sorry!). Yes, Tolkien's work is full of early kings who went off to battle, but look what happened to them - and their kingdoms! Worse still, their heirs nearly always seem to get killed at the same time. And none of them is *the* King.

Another thing: I get the impression that Tolkien's aristocrats earn their respect. They may have been born to rule, but they work for it, keeping the borders safe and protecting their people. I'm thinking of the Rangers and their ilk in particular. Aragorn has certainly earned his kingship by the time he's crowned! He doesn't have to bea politican.

[Lobelia]

I actually did my Honours thesis in English literature on the subject of King Arthur and why he starts off as a heroic warrior and ends up sitting in Camelot handing out knighthoods. The conclusion I drew from my research was that a mediaeval Christian king was not supposed to go out to battle, because of the fact that the land depended on him to stay alive. Yes, I know, I know, there were mediaeval warrior-kings such as Richard the Lionheart. But face it, he was a lousy king, no matter what the Robin Hood movies tell you. I doubt if he would have been considered a good king even in his own time. Now, Aragorn is a warrior, no question about it, but he has spent most of his life as being something other than a King, even if he does have the right to the throne. My guess is that, in the Fourth Age, he would have been concentrating on running his kingdom and delegated the warrior duties to the likes of Faramir. (If I missed some reference to a battle in the Appendices, sorry!). Yes, Tolkien's work is full of early kings who went off to battle, but look what happened to them - and their kingdoms! Worse still, their heirs nearly always seem to get killed at the same time. And none of them is *the* King.

Another thing: I get the impression that Tolkien's aristocrats earn their respect. They may have been born to rule, but they work for it, keeping the borders safe and protecting their people. I'm thinking of the Rangers and their ilk in particular. Aragorn has certainly earned his kingship by the time he's crowned! He doesn't have to be a politician.

[Boromir88]

Going back to an earlier post by SpM, with the quote from the letters about "politics." Perhaps the difference between Aragorn and Denethor is Aragorn isn't corrupted by the politics.

We saw him in Rohan try to disobey Theoden's orders. He had full right to claim Rohan when he claimed Kingship, but he didn't. Which differs from Denethor. Denethor despises anyone who doesn't fight under him. He has become corrupted and obsessed with ruling people, being in charge (similar to Sauron and Saruman allthough not to their extent). He can't see that Gandalf is there to help him. He only thinks Gandalf wants to overthrow him and place Aragorn in his stead. He can't see the fact that he's not a king, he's a steward, he takes care of the throne until the king returns. Aragorn is not corrupted by the power he possesses, and Denethor you might say tries to use power he doesn't have. I wouldn't say "politician" is a bad word to describe Aragorn, he just hasn't become corrupted with the power that most politicians hold.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

He had full right to claim Rohan when he claimed Kingship, but he didn't.

Boromir, I disagree. In the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion of The King of the Golden Hall, we discussed the fact that Rohan was an independent kingdom, allied with Gondor but not subserviant to the Gondorian king. Aragorn made a mistake there, from which he learned a lesson. He had absolutely no claim to any kind of rulership in Rohan. At the end of LotR, both Éomer and Aragorn are kings, renewing their friendship. Though one kingdom is greater and more influential than the other, neither falls under the jurisdiction of the other.