Patriotism and the Lord of the Rings

[Thinlómien]

I'm glad I decided to read this thread after all, because it has made me think about stuff.

Unlike it has been argued, we actually get one common soldier's view of things: Beregond's. I think we would be right to call him a patriot, although his deepest loyalties lay with a single captain, Faramir. But is there in his admiration something of sharing Faramir's love of the country and the city? I think it seems so. So patriotism was not just for the nobility, but some commoners found it inspiring as well. (As a side issue, what would you guys say about Bergil? Is it simple boyishness sense of adventure that makes him stay in the city or is there actually patriotism involved?) At least patriotism is strongly involved in the scene where the different captains from other parts of Gondor come to Minas Tirith.

Which leads me to think... did the Gondorians cherish the ethnic differences in their country - like in this scene, all the different "peoples" are presented and it shown in positive light that they have different armies with their sopecial abilities coming to the city and the people cheer at them all? But still, those who are the stars of the show are the sons of the old Dúnedain lordfs - the knights of Dol Amroth. More or less all the big Gondorian heroes are of Númenórean descent.

Patriotism, it has a lot to do with nationalism and now I'm led to wonder if there were separatist movements inside Gondor. In our world, nationalism is a new-ish concept, but what about M-E? Did the "aborigines" of Gondor ever feel oppressed by the Dúnedain kings and folk? Did they desire to have a country of their own to rule as they will (for that sure is an ancient desire)? I think they generally accpeted the Dúnedain because they were treated well and a lot of good was done to them, and in the course of time the two peoples mingled so that most of Gondorians were of mixed blood. But the idea of a separatist "aborigine" clan somewhere in the mountains of western Gondor just sounds rather intriguing...

Ok, now I got carried away. Back to the topic.

Originally Posted by Ibrin

The marchwardens of Lothlorien appear quite dedicated to the defense of their land, but I sometimes wonder if they are more devoted to Celeborn and Galadriel than to any sense of "country."

A lot of good points have been made about the Lórien Elves, and I will not repeat them, but I still have something to add. You have to consider how long Galadriel and Celeborn had been there. The kingdom as it was would not have existed without them, they were to rule it for ever, for they were immortal - they were the kingdom. So in the case of these Elves, it is difficult if not impossible to separate loyalty to the leaders from loyalty to the country.

This, I think, applies to Elves in many other cases as well. So many kingdoms fell when their leaders fell. In Elvish systems, the leaders were the heart of the country even more permanently than in the monarchies of our worlds, where the leader changes from time to time simply because of the fact that people die.

An interesting case to consider in this light is Nargothrond and its leader changes. I wonder if they affected the patriotism of the citizens a lot... should recall more of it. But Nargothrond thrived in felagund's time, before the arrival of Celegorm and Curufin, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Groin

Theoden issue is easily solved as to why the people did not rise up in revolt. Monarchy was the only system of government known to the people and to suggest anything else would be just crazy talk. The king was appointed according to his family tree in the royal class, of course you are going to get a few bad heirs who are rotten kings, but for the majority that was tolerated so long as the majority of heirs were dutiful to the position of king (by the way it is interesting to note that almost all the kings in Tolkien's books show more patriotism than the ordinary individual).

Also, I think that we should look a bit less narrow-mindedly at the case of Théoden. Was he such a bad king, in fact? Did the general majority of the commoners think his avoidance of the war was bad? We have Gamling clearly expressing his approval of the new policy, but what about the peasants of Wold or Eastfold, or the people of Edoras and its surroundings? The war was not at their doorstep in the same manner as at the Westfolders'. And if you forget about the war, do we have any reason to expect that Rohan was badly or unjustly governed under Gríma&Théoden? And as one last point, people had been generally content with their kings in Rohan, so there was no general disappointment with the ruling family, and besides, we haven't been told anything about Théoden's early years as a king. Maybe he was a loved and a good king then? Maybe he used to be popular among the people? Well-established popularity fades slowly, I think it quite likely that Rohirrim were slow to "turn against" Théoden because they still remembered him as a good king.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Unlike it has been argued, we actually get one common soldier's view of things: Beregond's. I think we would be right to call him a patriot, although his deepest loyalties lay with a single captain, Faramir. But is there in his admiration something of sharing Faramir's love of the country and the city? I think it seems so. So patriotism was not just for the nobility, but some commoners found it inspiring as well. (As a side issue, what would you guys say about Bergil? Is it simple boyishness sense of adventure that makes him stay in the city or is there actually patriotism involved?) At least patriotism is strongly involved in the scene where the different captains from other parts of Gondor come to Minas Tirith.

Indeed. Gondorians, from my point of view, are obvious patriots, even the common people. Even Faramir and his Rangers, as far as I can remember, at least I got this impression. Although, of course, they are soldiers, so one can hardly expect any complaints from them. But even in general, I am imagining the common Gondorians a bit of the sort of the cheered-up people: "Every sheep from my herd gives wool, from which my wife can make blankets which could be sent to our brave soldiers who are staying all winter in Osgiliath, protecting our homes!"

Which leads me to think... did the Gondorians cherish the ethnic differences in their country - like in this scene, all the different "peoples" are presented and it shown in positive light that they have different armies with their sopecial abilities coming to the city and the people cheer at them all?

Well, aside from the "purest" Dúnedain, as you mentioned, I doubt the differencies otherwise play much of a role. It is no different, in my opinion, from let's say the Shire, where you have the Tooks and Brandybucks and Bagginses and whoever else. And mainly, I think it has little to do with the cheering - people were simply cheering because they saw more of these "brave soldiers who are going to protect our homes" - cf. above (and the coolest were those of Dol Amroth). It possibly was only that old Beregond Sr., sitting in a pub with his friends, went on saying "Ah yes, I have been to Lamedon, it's a queer folk out there, you know, all day spending with the sheep... and they couldn't even speak properly, if you ever heard how funnily they pronounce 'Denethor'..." But that would be about it. So, I don't think the Gondorians (and now one would be also to ask what do you mean by "Gondorians" - the common people, or the nobles?) actually cared in any way about what ethnic groups is their nation composed of. They simply were all Gondorians (and for quite a long time), only old Beregond Sr. could complain over the Lamedonians having funny accent, that's about it.

But in general, it seemed that the various parts of Gondor were quite a lot in contact with each other - for example, Ioreth had relatives in Imloth Melui, I have no idea where it was, but I gather that it was not quite next door. (Although, maybe all Ioreth's family was living in Imloth Melui, and only the young perspective girl just went for studies to Minas Tirith and started a big career...)

Patriotism, it has a lot to do with nationalism and now I'm led to wonder if there were separatist movements inside Gondor. In our world, nationalism is a new-ish concept, but what about M-E? Did the "aborigines" of Gondor ever feel oppressed by the Dúnedain kings and folk? Did they desire to have a country of their own to rule as they will (for that sure is an ancient desire)? I think they generally accpeted the Dúnedain because they were treated well and a lot of good was done to them, and in the course of time the two peoples mingled so that most of Gondorians were of mixed blood.

I am very certain that there were such groups. For example, the Dead Men of Dunharrow (before they became Dead) were a kind of extreme example of something, which in my opinion existed among the, as you say, "aborigines" of Gondor. And remember the still existing division between the "lesser men" and those of Dúnadan descent: I am pretty certain that all the time, there existed some groups of people (on both sides) who were displeased with one or the other. But as we see from the history, it never turned into any large-scale idea of rebellion.

But the idea of a separatist "aborigine" clan somewhere in the mountains of western Gondor just sounds rather intriguing...

Yes, and they could form also a weird secret cult in the White Mountains, could they

Also, I think that we should look a bit less narrow-mindedly at the case of Théoden. Was he such a bad king, in fact? Did the general majority of the commoners think his avoidance of the war was bad? We have Gamling clearly expressing his approval of the new policy, but what about the peasants of Wold or Eastfold, or the people of Edoras and its surroundings? The war was not at their doorstep in the same manner as at the Westfolders'. And if you forget about the war, do we have any reason to expect that Rohan was badly or unjustly governed under Gríma&Théoden? And as one last point, people had been generally content with their kings in Rohan, so there was no general disappointment with the ruling family, and besides, we haven't been told anything about Théoden's early years as a king. Maybe he was a loved and a good king then? Maybe he used to be popular among the people? Well-established popularity fades slowly, I think it quite likely that Rohirrim were slow to "turn against" Théoden because they still remembered him as a good king.

Indeed, actually, I see no reason why Théoden should be regarded as bad king except for the very last few years? We hear nothing particularly wrong about him. And even then, indeed, as you say, who knows if some common people did not actually approve even latter Gríma's policies... yesss! It was all just these "grumblers" like Éomer, this young snake, whispering bad things about the King, troubling the minds of his poor people.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Most commoners lived short, squalid lives, were dragged off to war by press gangs, and were slaughtered brutally on the battlefield without any comprehension about what they were actually fighting for. Whether they cared about which tyrant they fought for mattered little anyway.

Oh, rubbish. A 'Norman Keeps' view of history, the mud-and-dung school which sees 'oppressed masses' everywhere.

Take a look at the contemporary accounts of the common Englishmen- and not just the impoverished, but yeoman farmers- who flocked voluntarily to the banners of Edward III and Henry V. Or consider the fact that a couple centuries later plays on the subject, stuffed full of flag-waving jingoism, would be immense popular hits with the Globe's penny groundlings- scant years after the Armada's defeat to general rejoicing.

Or consider that during the Plantagenets' wars in France, the use of French was so 'unpatriotic' that it vanished from daily speech- giving rise to Middle English. (And the St George Flag as well).

Or if you want to go back a bit, read some of Pericles' speeches- to a nation of citizen-soldiers. The Athenian underclass were slaves and didn't fight.

Human beings are tribal, whether its football boosters or nations at war. We love to have an 'us,' to be contrasted with 'them.'

EDIT to keep it on topic- the Rohirrim put up with Theoden's grandfather Fengel, a long-lived and lousy king.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Oh, rubbish. A 'Norman Keeps' view of history, the mud-and-dung school which sees 'oppressed masses' everywhere.

Take a look at the contemporary accounts of the common Englishmen- and not just the impoverished, but yeoman farmers- who flocked voluntarily to the banners of Edward III and Henry V.

...And stayed in France as parasitic mercenaries -- like Robert Knollys, John Hawkwood and thousands of others -- who preyed on the French countryside for most of the 14th and part of the 15th century. Don't kid yourself, it wasn't patriotism, it was the lure of loot. And the grateful English kings, in lieu of payment to his troops, merely left them in France to fend for themselves. Once the French managed to produce a king that wasn't genetically imbecilic, like Charles V, the easy pickings dried up, and the war became very unpopular. Taxes increased due to resulting lack of funds being siphoned from France, and the spiralling inflation led to the Peasant Revolt under Wat Tyler and John Ball.

This was also the case in 1066, as the Norman lords (and half the murderers of Europe) followed William the Bastard across the Channel to feast on Anglo-Saxon England. A grateful William gave out huge tracts of land to his lords, the only way his 'patriotic' pals would have remained in England after stripping it bare.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Or consider the fact that a couple centuries later plays on the subject, stuffed full of flag-waving jingoism, would be immense popular hits with the Globe's penny groundlings- scant years after the Armada's defeat to general rejoicing.

But my post did not concern 16th century or later Europe; rather, it concerned earlier periods more in context with the Lord of the Rings. I was primarily referring to the Dark Ages and Middle Ages. Even a discussion of wars during the 14th century represent the germination of nationalism (particularly amongst the English and the French) that was not as discernible in earlier periods, particularly the dichotomy between Anglo-Saxon peasantry and Norman lords, which would be a very Tolkienesque analogy from a philological and historical standpoint.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Or consider that during the Plantagenets' wars in France, the use of French was so 'unpatriotic' that it vanished from daily speech- giving rise to Middle English. (And the St George Flag as well).

Well, you are being rather revisionist. The first actual Angevin 'King of England' was Henry II; prior to that, their appellation was 'King of the English' -- an important distinction, and to the point I was making earlier. But the use of French was waning as early as the death of William I. King Edward I spoke English entirely; however, the epitome of Plantagenet Kings, Edward III, spoke primarily French, and since you refer to Shakespeare, do you not find it interesting that in the play Henry V there is an entire scene where the king's dialogue is in French? To be fair to your argument, Henry V did also inaugurate the use of Chancery Standard English, and his reign was the first to have English used as the language of government documents.

But French never truly 'vanished' from daily speech, which is a preposterous exaggeration. Actually, Middle-English is a melding of French and Old English, if you follow the theory that M-E is a Creole language. Creolization is a linguistic process that reflects the maturation of an inferior language (in this case Anglo-Saxon) to reflect the sophistication and complexity of the dominant language (Norman French) over a prolonged period of time. As it is, there are countless French words still mucking up the language.

Intriguingly, and germane to Creolization, is the number of borrowed French words used to define nobility and power in English. If one is a lowly peasant farmer, one has chickens, cows, lambs, sheep and pigs (all Anglo-Saxon variants); however, once the farm animals have been slaughtered and pass to the refined lord's plate, they have become poultry, beef, veal, mutton and pork (all derivative of French). In addition, the English parliamentary and judicial systems both rely heavily on French (the words parliamentary and judicial both, of course, borrowed from France).

Now, to stay on topic after a lengthy diggression...let me see, let me see...ah yes, Rohan! Okay, I am relieved.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

The question that Abers put forth about Theoden is interesting indeed. Groin sugests that it is because monarchy is the only thing known to inhabitans of Rohan, that might be, but I am not intirely convinced by the argument. Through history there have been plenty of cases where Kings have been overthrown, not to introduce a new system, but to introduce a new king. Obvious he would need to have some sort of claim to the throne, but those could be fabricated. . .
If Rohan had been truly patriotic, then surely they would overthrow their king who was under the influence of a foregin power?

It seems that allegiance often lies with the royal families and other overlords and not so much to a country. . .at least that is the view I have.

The elves surely are not patriotic. They have fought for personal gain and against a common enemy, but I have yet to see any sign of true patriotism.

I would like to say more, but I have so many thoughts I need to process, especially about Elves and Gondor.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

do you not find it interesting that in the play Henry V there is an entire scene where the king's dialogue is in French?

Actually a scene where the king, once, attempts to communicate with Katherine in astoundingly *bad* French, which is the point:

"I will tell thee in French, which I am sure will hang upon my tongue like a new-married wife about her husband's neck, hardly to be shook off. Je quand sur le possession de France, et quand vous avez le possession de moi - let me see, what then? St Denis be my speed! -done votre est France et vous etes mienne. It is as easy for me, Kate, to conquer the kingdom as to speak so much more French. I shall never move thee in French, unless it be to laugh at me."

Of course Will is taking licence: the real Henry spoke perfectly good French.

(Plantagent: yes, from Geoffrey comte d'Anjou- but it remained the English royal surname down to Bosworth Field).

Taxes increased due to resulting lack of funds being siphoned from France, and the spiralling inflation led to the Peasant Revolt under Wat Tyler and John Ball.

together with the Black Death and the resultant ill-considered Statute of Labourers....

Moving back in time, though: I doubt that even the fyrd at Hastings was devoid of patriotism, or at least a recognition that their freedom was under threat from a foreign culture and political system (as it was).

Sure, the Free Companies were hyenas- but they preyed on French (including nominal English subjects when they could get away with it). The rise of patriotism runs in parallel with the rise of nation-states of a more-or-less ethno-linguistic character. While mercenaries were employed in most wars from the medieval period right down to the modern age, the two conflicts characterized by armies composed almost entirely of mercenaries were the arenas in which national formation had been arrested: Renaissance Italy and the Thirty Years' War.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Actually a scene where the king, once, attempts to communicate with Katherine in astoundingly *bad* French, which is the point:

Of course Will is taking licence: the real Henry spoke perfectly good French..

Nevertheless, as I've noted, it wasn't until Harry's reign in the 15th century that English became the official language of England.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Moving back in time, though: I doubt that even the fyrd at Hastings was devoid of patriotism, or at least a recognition that their freedom was under threat from a foreign culture and political system (as it was).

Was it patriotism to England or loyalty to Harold? Heck, Harold's own brother, Tostig, sold out, and there was dissent in the north in favor of Harald Hardrada. It was not a unified 'England' that William the Bastard invaded.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Sure, the Free Companies were hyenas- but they preyed on French (including nominal English subjects when they could get away with it). The rise of patriotism runs in parallel with the rise of nation-states of a more-or-less ethno-linguistic character. While mercenaries were employed in most wars from the medieval period right down to the modern age, the two conflicts characterized by armies composed almost entirely of mercenaries were the arenas in which national formation had been arrested: Renaissance Italy and the Thirty Years' War.

If you look at the dynamics of France in the 14th century, it was basically a crazy-quilt of conflicting Duchies: Berry, Anjou, Burgundy, Brittany, Normandy, and even the petty kingdom of Navarre. There was very little impetus for unification because the monarchy was weak; whereas, England had a series of strong kings (or at least strong ones alternating with weak ones). It would seem that centralization played a part in patriotism in the late Middle-ages.