Please Help me Understand Gondor Stewardship and Kingship

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by denethorthefirst

I can't really support your judgement of Cirion.

I agree, actually -- but.

But, Tolkien wrote a lot of his works as in-universe texts, which means 'Cirion and Eorl' may be presumed to come from a Gondorian source friendly to the steward (who, as you say, cemented a vital alliance by the oath). It would hardly portray him in a negative light - particularly since one of his descendants was still holding the position.

But, while Cirion was absolutely right to do what he did, and granting that he seems to have had the best and purest of motives... that still doesn't mean he had the right to do it. If I ask you to look after my house - or rather, if I ask you to look after my house while I'm away, and then I get kidnapped so you just keep on doing so - that doesn't give you the right to sell off my garden to developers, or move Grandad's ashes from the fireplace to the bedroom. Cirion may legally have had the authority to do what he did, but in a spiritual-ethical-moral sense, I'm not at all sure he did.

Taken to extremes: if Denethor II had made an alliance with Sauron and declared war on Lothlorien, on the grounds that it was in Gondor's best interests, would Aragorn have been bound to honour that alliance, because Denethor had the legal right to make it?

hS

[denethorthefirst]

I get what you mean, but your analogy is not quite right. You cannot compare the Rohirrim with Sauron. Cirion made a pact with good Men, he did not betray his Faith, the founding mission of Gondor and the vision of Elendil. Elendil would approve, at least thats what I think. An alliance with Mordor however would contradict everything the Faithful Numenoreans, the Founders of Gondor, stood for, it would be the ultimate betrayal. So one could argue that, theoretically, Cirion, as Steward of the King, as a caretaker of the Realm and of royal property, did not have the right to give away territory. So he maybe acted against the letter of his "contract" as a steward, but he did not act against the spirit of his "contract", because the pact between Rohan and Gondor did align with the ethos and the culture of the Faithful. You argued in your post that Cirion may have been right in a legal sense but wrong in a moral sense. But one could also argue that the opposite was the case: that Cirions action was, strictly speaking, maybe legally wrong, but in a spiritual-moral sense right.

It is a matter of perspective. We also have to remember that the good relations between Gondor and the Northmen predated Cirion and existed at least since the Reign of King Romendacil II, who further deepened the relationship between Gondor and the Norhmen and even sent his son Valacar to the North, to learn the language and culture of the Northmen. Valacar even married a northern woman (Vidumavi), and their son King Eldacar won the civil war against the usurper Castamir with the help of said Northmen. Thats over a thousand years prior to the Ride of the Rohirrim! And all the Kings after Eldacar seem to have supported that relationship, for we know that the Northmen helped Gondor multiple times in the Wainrider-Wars (and maybe Gondor would have perished then and there without that help). If we take that long and positive relationship between Gondor and the Northmen into account, a relationship that was started and promoted by the Kings (long before Hurin of Emyn Arnen even became the first Steward from the House of Hurin!), then it seems that Cirions action was more or less the logical endpoint of a (thousand year) long foreign policy direction of Gondor.

And what were the alternatives? What should Cirion have done differently? Just give the Rohirrim some gold and then send them their way? Large parts of Calenardhon were still infested with enemies, it would have taken Gondor several years to completely clear the territory, and after all that labour Gondor would not even have been in a position to effectively maintain Calenardhon. If Cirion had acted that way, then Gondor would have been (on paper) larger in territory, but it would have been weaker overall. And it is also quite possible that the good relationship between Gondor and the Northmen would have suffered if Cirion had demanded that they return home. I guess that Cirion rightly anticipated that it would only be a matter of time until the Easterlings renewed their attack to populate the now almost completely empty Calenardhon. And what will Gondor do then? Again call for the Northmen? How willing would they be then to come again to the help of Gondor? Who would be the better neighbor? Better invite the Rohirrim now, than to risk a perhaps unavoidable takeover by the Easterlings in a few decades. In my opinion it was the more prudent decision to accept the Rohirrim as neighbors now, than to leave the territory empty, a defenseless victim for a future takeover.

So, even if Cirions decision might have been "wrong" in a legal or moral sense, he could not have taken another decision from Gondors perspective. Cirions decision safeguarded the future existence of not only Gondor but of all the western lands behind the Anduin. Cirion is a mortal, he lived in the here and now and he was responsible for millions of humans. He simply did not have the luxury do expel the Rohirrim only to satisfy some legalist interpretation of his responsibilities without any real-world benefits. How would that have helped the People of Gondor?

[Galadriel55]

I feel that Cirion's choice to give away Calenardhon is only immoral if you consider Gondor's ancient borders as something sacred or set in stone, something that cannot be changed. But what's in a border? What use are the old borders to a country that's shrunken to a third - if not less - of its size? Gondor already gave up most of its land, in fact if not in law. They old borders mean something in their tradition - Boromir's horn is supposed to be heard anywhere inside the old boundaries, and Faramir gives Frodo leave to pass on old Gondorian lands that really aren't in their control anymore. But the reality is that Gondor lives on a fraction of its former land, and land without inhabitants cannot be claimed by said inhabitants. The old boundaries mean something in tradition, but they are a relic that did not reflect the newer times - and will not reflect Aragorn's times either since it seems like his realm would be much wider and possibly eventually include all lands west of Rhun. So is there anything inherently unchangeable about Gondor's borders?

If the issue in question is not in the borders themselves but in Cirion - that it was not within his rights to give away land that was not his - I would argue against that for two reasons. First, the Stewards are not supposed to preserve Gondor in a cocoon and prevent any change, to keep it exactly as it was in the days of the king. They are supposed to rule Gondor as a king would rule it, and to rule it in its best interests. Best interests don't always include territorial expansion. Secondly, I see the gift not as giving away land, but as gaining an ally. Gondor could not populate Calenardhon. The land is or will soon be lost anyways. But the oath Cirion and Eorl gave makes Rohan an eternal friend to Gondor. So yes, the land is given to a new set of inhabitants, but if you think about is in terms of political alignment rather than race Cirion actually made Gondor stronger. Where it used to have the power of one nation, it now has two, and someone to cover their back. The land is still serving Gondor's prosperity even under the complete control of the Rohirrim by nature of their oath. It's not really a gift, and it's not a lease, but it's something in between that hangs on the good faith of the rulers of both countries.

[Morthoron]

Cirion's decision was realpolitik. He granted Calenardhon to Eorl because he could not hold it. Better to gain fealty from an ally than have the land overrun by Easterlings. Cirion's decision proved farsighted. It's certainly not something a Denethor II would have done.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Cirion's decision was realpolitik. He granted Calenardhon to Eorl because he could not hold it. Better to gain fealty from an ally than have the land overrun by Easterlings. Cirion's decision proved farsighted. It's certainly not something a Denethor II would have done.

Well, Cirion and Eorl does acknowledge that Cirion didn't make the offer solely from the goodness, of his heart; he did, though, genuinely have an affection for Eorl and his people, and wanted to give them some great reward.

I think Denethor might have done the same, though the potential benefit to Gondor would have been the driving factor.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Pelendur started this by rejecting Arvedui's claim to the throne for the far weaker one of General Earnil

Far weaker? Not at all. Earnil was a direct descendant of Anarion, which Arvedui wasn't. Note that while Arvedui's son theoretically might have claimed distaff descent via his mother, Arvedui could hardly do so in right of his wife. Besides, as far as mighty Gondor was concerned, Arvedui was already "last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship and dignity." It was probably seen as nearly as risible as some Holy Roman Emperor claiming the Byzantine throne.

When Earnil's son Earnur died without issue, matters had changed because apparently "descendants of Anarion" was now a null set. But by this time Arvedui was dead and Arnor no more.