The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I’m obviously not an Anglo-Saxon in mentality but I would not want such a man commanding me if I were a soldier or responsible for the defense of part of my land if I were a king. Such a man is downright counterproductive.

I suppose this is the issue - lets take some 'Anglo-saxons' - the Rohirrim, Faramir's 'middle men', who love the glory of battle. Would they have had such a 'negative' view of Turin's actions? Their behaviour seems to border on the suicidal sometimes, because for them not feeling ashamed in the Halls of their fathers is the central motivating force. Turin forced things - he was a kind of 'wild card' who made things happen. The conflict with Morgoth was not something which could be avoided. It was simply a case of if it doesn't happen now, it'll happen sooner or later. Morgoth was the bad guy, & he wasn't going to stop. Turin's thought, & Feanor's, & Boromir's, was simply if we're going to go down, at least we will go down fighting. Yes, they go down in a blaze of glory, dragging too many unfortunates with them, but in the end the battle is going to come to them.

Lets take a look at Aragorn's 'ofermod' before the Black Gate, when he has just been given 'evidence' of Frodo's capture, the failure of the Quest. Defeat is inevitable, but he has been offered terms of surrender, & life & safety for his people. Does he take it, & 'live to fight another day'? No, he decides he will make a last stand against an overwhelming force, which, after it has destroyed his & his army, will go on & wipe out or enslave the rest of the West.

Ok, that's not as extreme as Turin's actions, but its bordering on them - a 'glorious' defeat, going down fighting, rather than thinking of 'saving' his people he does what Beortnoth does & decides 'better death than dishonour'. And we know that Sauron wouldn't have simply slaughtered all & sundry, because he wanted slaves, not corpses.

These kind of 'rash' actions run right through the Legendarium. Ofermod is a 'bad' thing in Tolkien's mind, dangerous, callous, & he'd prefer a 'civilised', 'Christian' world of universal love & peace, but, by the gods, ofermod can be glorious, it can also inspire succeding generations - who inspires you most, who did most damage to Morgoth, who 'lives on' - Turin's, Feanor's, or 'that elf guy, the tall one with the blue tunic, in Nargothrond' (can't remember his name, or exactly what he did, etc, etc.)? Turin inspires, so does Feanor. And the reason they inspire is due in large part (& whether Tolkien likes it or not) because of their ofermod.

[Kuruharan]

Their behaviour seems to border on the suicidal sometimes, because for them not feeling ashamed in the Halls of their fathers is the central motivating force.

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.

Theoden fought because he had to. He made every effort to salvage as much as he could out of the wreck. This stands in stark contrast to the actions of Feanor and Turin who led their people (or in Turin’s case, several peoples) down the road to ruin.

Yes, they go down in a blaze of glory, dragging too many unfortunates with them, but in the end the battle is going to come to them.

They could have fought in a manner that would have spread less havoc of their own creation to their side. Although, I believe Boromir to be a different case.

Lets take a look at Aragorn's 'ofermod' before the Black Gate, when he has just been given 'evidence' of Frodo's capture, the failure of the Quest. Defeat is inevitable, but he has been offered terms of surrender, & life & safety for his people. Does he take it, & 'live to fight another day'? No, he decides he will make a last stand against an overwhelming force, which, after it has destroyed his & his army, will go on & wipe out or enslave the rest of the West.

Ah, well, this is a different case. 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. Feanor and Turin put people in bad spots that it was not necessary for them to be in.

he does what Beortnoth does & decides 'better death than dishonour'. And we know that Sauron wouldn't have simply slaughtered all & sundry, because he wanted slaves, not corpses.

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.

And Sauron would have killed every member of the army. There were plenty of slaves in the Western lands to take and he’d want to set an example.

Turin inspires, so does Feanor. And the reason they inspire is due in large part (& whether Tolkien likes it or not) because of their ofermod.

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.

[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.