Gandalf, blood of hobbits on his hands?

[Bêthberry]

Popping in here with a few observations . . . . My take is that Tolkien was not writing an allegory of his century (see his comments in the Foreward to the Second Edition of LotR) so I fail to see how arguments about who started what war in that century have any bearing on LotR. Much of this thread sounds like an opportunity to argue about war in the Twentieth Century. The applicability to LotR is tenuous, which after all owes more to ancient battle epics and sagas than to Carl Von Clausewitz's On War. Lost in all of this (at least for this boring old Tolkien reader) is the question of whether it is appropriate to blame Gandalf for the events of the Scouring of the Shire.

I would, however, like to make a humble comment on the use of the digital symbol @, to address the arguments of fellow Downers. My reservations about this might be due to English being my native language, and so perhaps any sensitivies about using @ to address posters would not belong to those who are not as familiar with English as I am. However, using @ to address a person reminds me very strongly of the English phrase, "have at" someone or something. In the Wiktionary (which admittedly is not the only dictionary), the archaic phrase is said to mean "to attack or engage in combat with." At dictionary.com, the definition is given as, "to go at vigorously; attack". While such an association might be well suited to the topic of warfare, I find it a tad harsh for our dour, staid, polite habits on the Downs. While it doesn't quite merit the description of a flame, it leans a bit too much towards internet attacks, particularly in a thread where feelings about responsibility for recent wars obviously touch personal nerves and where comments are verging on the personal. Could we please forgo using @ to address comments to particular posters and rely on that very handy device called "quote" which is readily available?

Really, I think the question that Gandalf was responsible for the deaths of hobits is too close to post modern deconstructions of meanings to be, well, meaningful. LotR begins with a detailed and affectionate look at hobbit culture--which is not devoid of violence--remember the Bonfire Glade and the battle with the trees of the Old Forest--and ends with a depiction of the consequences of the War of the Ring on that culture. It's a full circle and to suggest that Gandalf could have avoided it is, I think, to miss both the narrative closure and the consequence of war, even distant war. It is, after all, as Tolkien said he wanted, a ripping good yarn, fantasy, and not history.

Now, boys, I'll let you back to your war games.

[The Might]

Firstly, about the historical references, you will see above that I was not the one who started them, I merely pointed out several historical mistakes or false interpretations in my opinion. It thus came about in the discussion that historical references were used as comparisons for events in Arda.

Secondly, refering to the "@" symbol, I was under no circumstances aware of its aggressive connotation. I have seen it used and used it myself on another forum and none of use ever did it in an aggressive context, but only to save some time for typing so to speak. I usually avoid that here on the Downs, since we don't use short forms of words, etc., but it seems to have stuck.

Now that I know that some may feel offended by its use I will refrain from using it here any longer. Thank you for your information in that respect, Bêthberry! I will edit my post above and remove the @s.

That is an interesting take on the question of guilt, and seeing it that way the question does lose its importance. Then again, seen that way many of the questions raised by his work make little sense, since it would be necessary for the author to depict things in a certain way.


And Andsigil, I will repeat that said above. I never said he would be "kept at bay for ever", I merely said that an alliance with the Easterlings and Southrons would have very much weakened Sauron and would have brought the free people of M-e in a much stronger position.

And yes, culture was a barrier, indeed. There were many differences between them, but simply looking back at Elves and Men of the First Age there were a lot more differences, even different races. And that worked out... so why wouldn't this work out?

And yes, you are correct about the debate part. Here in Germany most people do go for the accusation of being a Nazi when trying to end any debate, but that was not my intention.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by The Might

And Andsigil, I will repeat that said above. I never said he would be "kept at bay for ever", I merely said that an alliance with the Easterlings and Southrons would have very much weakened Sauron and would have brought the free people of M-e in a much stronger position.

But conflict was still inevitable. So, accusing Tolkien of jingoism doesn't make sense.

And yes, culture was a barrier, indeed. There were many differences between them, but simply looking back at Elves and Men of the First Age there were a lot more differences, even different races. And that worked out... so why wouldn't this work out?

It worked out with some of the men. It certainly didn't work out with the Easterlings led by Uldor and Ulfang in the Nírnaeth Arnoediad, did it? And by no means are the Edain depicted as any majority among humankind. Tolkien took great care to depict the Edain as an exception.

And yes, you are correct about the debate part. Here in Germany most people do go for the accusation of being a Nazi when trying to end any debate, but that was not my intention.

So, what was your intention in this absurd implication of racism, then?

[The Might]

Merely to find out what was so different about the Easterlings and the Southrons in your opinion so as to prevent them from becoming virtually viable alliance partners for Gondor and Rohan.

As an example again to the question of culture, what about the Druedain?

A totally different culture, different to all other groups of men, with probably bigger differences between themselves and the Gondorians then Gondorians and the others mentioned above. Still, they coexisted peacefully with the Men of Brethil, then in Númenor and finally helped out the Rohirrim and the Gondorians.

And yes, conflict was inevitable, so I was not accusing Tolkien of violence in general, at least not in the latter posts, but merely excessive use of violence at times, in situations where I rather see discussion as possibility.

Again, from your idea with the Edain I am getting the idea your are clearly drawing a line between some men and other men. Hence my blunt and offensive question above for which I again apologize.

You say it is Tolkien depicting them like that, as better than the rest of mankind. They are indeed special in his writings, but I do not believe the Professor ever intended to draw such a line of separation, I doubt it would be his style or his intention.

Tolkien wrote:

in a draft of a letter (#30) to a publisher in Nazi Germany who asked about his race, and in Letter #29 he introduced that draft and told his publisher, "I should regret giving any colour to the notion that I
subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine." ~ quote taken from an essay against the idea that Tolkien's writings are intolerant and racist

The whole idea is Tolkien himself did not see the Southrons and Easterlings as bad, evil, or really that different than the Edain, and I doubt that he wanted his readers to perceive them that way.

So why would an alliance be so unlikely?


Ok, really off-topic by now, so trying to come back to the question of Gandalf and the hobbits... could they indeed be changed?
Groin said it was a type of reactivation of already present knowledge and capability. I agree, that makes sense. But what if they would so to speak deactivate themselves again under a peaceful rule of the house of Telcontar? Did the Scouring then make sense?

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by The Might

Merely to find out what was so different about the Easterlings and the Southrons in your opinion so as to prevent them from becoming virtually viable alliance partners for Gondor and Rohan.

As an example again to the question of culture, what about the Druedain?

A totally different culture, different to all other groups of men, with probably bigger differences between themselves and the Gondorians then Gondorians and the others mentioned above. Still, they coexisted peacefully with the Men of Brethil, then in Númenor and finally helped out the Rohirrim and the Gondorians.

So did the Ents. And even the Dunlendings repented, and they were of the same race of men as the Rohirrim and the everyday Gondorians. But all of this was at the Nth hour, when Sauron was marching his armies out of Mordor.

Suffice it to say that Tolkien wasn't interested in race in the Rings War. He was more interested in culture, I think, and depicted the Haradrim (who were in close proximity to both the Black Numernoreans and Mordor) and the men of Khand (east of Mordor and difficult for the weakened Gondor to treat with) as men of a more primitive culture and susceptible to the divine influence of Sauron.

The Haradrim and Khandites (sp?) had, as far as we know, no previous experience with getting burned by Sauron like the men of Numenor did.

And yes, conflict was inevitable, so I was not accusing Tolkien of violence in general, at least not in the latter posts, but merely excessive use of violence at times, in situations where I rather see discussion as possibility.

Again, I point out that it's fair to assume, because of his background, that Tolkien had a blueprint of ME and humanity which borrowed heavily from this one. Diplomacy, as you see it, is a new invention. The actions of the men of Gondor were in keeping with men of "similar" times, culture, and governance.

Again, from your idea with the Edain I am getting the idea your are clearly drawing a line between some men and other men. Hence my blunt and offensive question above for which I again apologize.

Apology accepted.

You say it is Tolkien depicting them like that, as better than the rest of mankind. They are indeed special in his writings, but I do not believe the Professor ever intended to draw such a line of separation, I doubt it would be his style or his intention.

Tolkien wrote:

The whole idea is Tolkien himself did not see the Southrons and Easterlings as bad, evil, or really that different than the Edain, and I doubt that he wanted his readers to perceive them that way.

I didn't say "better", you did. However, their friendship with the Eldar did result in long life and an island empire (which they threw away after letting themselves be seduced by Sauron, themselves. Not so dissimilar from the men of Khand and Harad were).

[Gordis]

About alliancs. Indeed the only lasting and successful alliance was that between the Gondorians and the Rohirrim. And Andsigil is right :it worked so well because the people in question were alike, were from the same Three Houses of the Edain. Strange no one has posted this quote yet, where Faramir speaks about the Men of Rohan:

And we love them: tall men and fair women, valiant both alike, golden-haired, bright-eyed, and strong; they remind us of the youth of Men, as they were in the Elder Days. Indeed it is said by our lore-masters that they have from of old this affinity with us that they are come from those same Three Houses of Men as were the Númenoreans in their beginning not from Hador the Goldenhaired, the Elf-friend, maybe, yet from such of his sons and people as went not over Sea into the West, refusing the call.
'For so we reckon Men in our lore, calling them the High, or Men of the West, which were Númenoreans; and the Middle Peoples, Men of the Twilight, such as are the Rohirrim and their kin that dwell still far in the North; and the Wild, the Men of Darkness- LOTR "The Window on the West"

So it was much easier for "High" Men, the Numenoreans, to make alliances with their kin, "Middle" Men, than with some "wild" men like the Dunlendings or the Hillmen of Rhudaur, or the Men of the White Mountains.

And even a marriage of Valacar to Vidumavi was frowned upon by the proud Gondorians as a misalliance with one of "lesser" blood. Eventually it led to Kin-strife.
Tolkien was not racist himself, but I am afraid the Numenoreans, both in Gondor and Arnor, were.
Why did the Hillmen of Rhudaur so universally turn against their Dunedain rulers and supported Angmar? Why did Dunlendings follow Saruman? I suspect Dunedain and Rohirrim racism was a huge factor.

For a good alliance there should be mutual profit; mutual, not one-sided. The Men of the Eoteod needed land. Gondor gave them the land, because Gondor had land to spare. Their ancestors had grabbed a huge portion of the West of Middle Earth, but were too sophisticated to keep their own numbers growing. In return for the land grant, the Gondorians obtained all those lances and swords eager to come to their aid at the first call. And to be sure of the Eorling' loyalty Cirion made them swear a quite terrible oath, in the keeping of Eru and the Valar. That alliance was the smartest political decision the rulers of Gondor had ever made - and it worked.

But could they do the same with say, Harad? The Haradrim were even more numerous then the Eotheod, reproducing fast, and always needed more land. Would Gondor grant them these lands in return for the alliance? And to Variags? And to Easterlings? There was not enough land in Gondor to satisfy everybody. And what was on the borders, the "wild" men managed to take without permission.

Also would the "wild" men, who probably had never heard of the Valar, keep their Oath as faithfully as the Rohirrim did?

And then there was Sauron, who was not that bad a ruler after all, if we look at things objectively. And he had already promised the lands of Gondor to the very same peoples - and sorry, was much more likely to grant them to his followers than the Gondorians themselves. Beat that…

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Tolkien was not racist himself, but I am afraid the Numenoreans, both in Gondor and Arnor, were.
Why did the Hillmen of Rhudaur so universally turn against their Dunedain rulers and supported Angmar? Why did Dunlendings follow Saruman? I suspect Dunedain and Rohirrim racism was a huge factor.

I'm afraid you're right. As to the Haradrim, I think their long animosity against the Numenoreans was not entirely unjustified. It probably started as far back as the Second Age, when the King's Men came to their shores as conquerors exacting heavy tribute, and the suprematist politics of the Gondorian kings in the Third Age certainly didn't make things better. I guess Sauron's Ministery of Propaganda had an easy job exploiting that justified grudge, just like Saruman with the Dunlendings.
Tolkien's own view is quite another matter. I don't get the feeling that he meant to paint Gondor as an ideal kingdom, nor that he wholeheartedly endorsed the way they dealt with the Southrons and Easterlings. The Dunedain were the good guys in so far as they were the only viable opposition to Sauron, but in every other respect they were as fallible as any other humans.

Back to Gandalf and the Hobbits. TM, I agree that once the Northern Kingdom was firmly reestablished, there would be no more need for the Hobbits to exercise their capacity for self-defense, so yes, they'd probably revert to their peaceful way of life. So I see the Scouring more as an afterlude (if that word actually exists) to the War of the Rings than a prelude to the Hobbits taking an active role in the power politics of the Fourth Age.
I'm sure Frodo would have agreed with you wishing for a solution that didn't cost 19 hobbit lives (not to mention the killed ruffians). Would he also have blamed Gandalf for not helping ? I don't think so. Gandalf's job, as I see it, was aiding mortal men (including hobbits) in their fight against the last incarnation of evil on a mythological scale. The Scouring, on the other hand, was just a fight against mere human evil (Saruman being reduced to little more than a mortal villain without his Maiarin powers), so Gandalf was forbidden to meddle by something like the Maiarin equivalent of the Federation Prime Directive.

So, did the Scouring make the Hobbits better? Probably not. Was it deplorable, in so far as it cost lives? Sure. Was it necessary? I'm afraid it was. No clean solution to anything in this Age of Men...

[Formendacil]

A couple different thoughts here...

Firstly, going back to the question of whether Gandalf is blameworthy here reminds me strongly of the philosophical Problem of Evil--whether God is blameworthy for allowing evil to occur, except Gandalf has (I think) the legitimate excuse of not being an omniscient, omnipotent being--powerful, but most certainly not unlimited, and although Gandalf has a certain amount of prescience denied other beings, he is still a Maia taken form as a Man, with most (if not all) the limitations that implies. A defensible case can be made, I think, that Gandalf was not aware that Saruman was in the Shire.

But even if Gandalf was aware, this does not mean he had to step in. One of the theodicies (that is, arguments that attempt to explain the Problem of Evil) is to suggest that God allows evil things to happen because this is necessary for our free will to function. I would suggest a similar explanation here: that Gandalf may have known indeed that Saruman was in the Shire, but because he had stripped Saruman of his staff and powers, he knew that Saruman could not pose more of a threat than the Hobbits could handle--and therefore he stayed out of it. Indeed, if you look at Gandalf's actions throughout the Lord of the Rings, he tends to use his power chiefly and most obviously against enemies that truly outmatch others--such as his battle against the Riders on Weathertop, or again against the Witchking in Gondor, or the obvious one against the Balrog. But where the enemy is one that others are capable of handling, Gandalf tends to step back into an advisory role, as when preparing for the assault on the Black Gate.

In the case of the Shire, Gandalf would be in a position to know, if anyone would, whether or not the Hobbits were capable of action against Sharkey and his villains, as indeed they proved to be, and it strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis that Gandalf would have abstained from interference out of respect for their own maturity as a community and people to be able to handle their own problems.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In the case of the Shire, Gandalf would be in a position to know, if anyone would, whether or not the Hobbits were capable of action against Sharkey and his villains, as indeed they proved to be, and it strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis that Gandalf would have abstained from interference out of respect for their own maturity as a community and people to be able to handle their own problems.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by The Might

Ok, now I really am getting started. German bellicosity starting WWI? You sound just like Clemenceau, so one-sided and without any deeper thinking.

This might come as a surprise to you, but sometimes I am actually accused of 'deep thinking'. I shan't belabor the point about Wilhelm and his generals, as it diminishes the original question, but I will comment that I am well aware of all the precedents of WWI, whom did what to whom, and who sided with whom. I will only leave with a comment from the academic journalist Alex Woodcock-Clarke, who stated: "He [Wilhelm II] may not have been 'the father of war' but he was certainly its 'godfather'."

Wilhelm, who was indeed diagnosed as a 'meddling megalomaniac' by contemporaries, pushed Austro-Hungary into a hard-line stance against Serbia, and Germany was the only country to invade neutral countries, like Luxembourg and Belgium (where Germans slaughtered civilians). I suggest you read the Pulitzer-Prize winning "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman, which brilliantly encapsulates the first month of WWI. It is not merely that Germany fomented the war, refused offers of detente and struck first, it is they continued the war another four years, when many of the German generals realized they could hope for nothing better than a stalemate after their Schlieffen Plan utterly failed after the first month of the war.

I am not obviating the parts played by the other combatants, as WWI was a miasma of muddle-headed lunacy on all sides; however, Wilhelm and his generals certainly bear the greatest culpability in starting and continuing the war. The evidence is there, whatever revisionist or partisan nonsense you care to quote.

Originally Posted by The Might

And really bringing it to a bigger scale - do you always need to kill something that's in your way? Because if yes, then we have a lot of killing to do in the time to come.

TM, as you seem quite intelligent, I will have to surmise that you refuse to take the original discussion in context. Given the situation and the time period (an era that precluded such modern inventions as 'detente' and 'passive resistance, and where these newfangled contrivances would be utterly alien in both a Middle-earth and a 'real world' sense), and considering that the usurper of power within the Shire (that being Saruman), whom you've already admitted lacked a conscience, and Saruman's barbaric band of cutthroats and thieves (again, I highly doubt they differed much from the murdering bands of merciless mercenaries who made life hell in 14th century France), would not ever feel compassion or sympathy for the hobbits they oppressed. They, in fact, thrived on the hobbits' misery, and purposely set out to destroy the Shire's bucolic way of life (clear-cutting trees, bulldozing hobbit-holes, replacing them with mean shacks, erecting smoke-belching chimneys, etc.).

This was Saruman's intent. In the meanest, vilest manner possible, he set out to destroy the Hobbits, believing them an easy mark. You'll notice he had little success in Bree (Ferny and his men were "shown the gate" as Butterbur said). As far as Gandalf, he said succinctly:

'I am with you at present,' said Gandalf. 'but soon I shall not be. I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folks to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.

In context with the 'scouring' and Frodo's evident distaste for battle, Merry said it best:

'But if there are many of these ruffians,' said Merry, 'it will certainly mean fighting. You won't rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo.'

So, after this circumlocutious (but intriguing) discussion, we see that, in context with the era presented (vague, certainly, but definitely free of any trappings from the Enlightenment or later), and with the specific dire situation (where Lotho had been killed, Lobelia and Fatty imprisoned, and the ruffians under Sharkey intent on killing the newcome hobbits, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin), battle was the only outcome certain to expel the tyrants from the Shire. The quick and decisive actions by the Hobbits actually reduced the casualties and ongoing misery of the Shire. As you may be aware, any effort at 'passive resistance' in real history (such as in India and South Africa) takes decades to bear fruit -- and hundreds or thousands of people die in the effort. Therefore, only 19 Hobbits dying, although grievous, was a small price to pay for freedom, and inordinately small compared to the actual wars that occurred in Rohan and Gondor.

Context, we must have context!

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Therefore, only 19 Hobbits dying, although grievous, was a small price to pay for freedom, and inordinately small compared to the actual wars that occurred in Rohan and Gondor.

The related thought occurs to me here--and I feel I might be harping a bit on the free will theme a bit--that those 19 Hobbits, though actually killed by the ruffians, may have, for all we know, been more responsible for their own demise than Gandalf, or Frodo, or Saruman might have been. My thought therein is not so much to remove potential culpability from those mighty agents, but to remember that the Hobbits all involved themselves in the battle voluntarily, and presumably wanted to play their part in the eviction of the ruffians. In a sense it denies their deaths value to say that they were completely unnecessary and avoidable.

And, indeed, we really can't say they were avoidable. Indeed, it is fine to speculate that Gandalf's presence in the Scouring of the Shire would have lowered the casualty rate even more than its already low actual count, but there is no reason to assume this is so. Again, I point out that Gandalf is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and although a powerful being, it is possible that drawing too powerful a being into the conflict might have resulted in greater bloodshed.

To speculate, for example, Gandalf's presence might have meant no Hobbit casualties at Bywater, or he might have been recognised as soon as they crossed the High Hay, and thus alerted Sharkey to his presence, rousing all the ruffians into much better martial order than the lazy lot that was trounced at Bywater. Indeed, a larger, better-gathered ruffian force expecting to fight a wizard might have given a better account of itself in battle, or (being cowards) they might have taken to slaughtering civilians. We have ample evidence, after all, that Saruman was not so much intent on changing and ruling the Shire as on ruining it, and his last ditch effort if Gandalf were to arrive might have been the wholesale massacre of the inhabitants of Hobbiton.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Context, we must have context!

I so desperately want to make a quip about Biblical exegesis here, but there is no relevance to the topic and we have plenty of real world digression in the WW1 tangent.

[The Might]

Well, as it seems that everyone else judges that this was the best way to solve things in the Shire I'll give up the discussion.
If even Merry speaks against me, then indeed within the LotR context there does not seem to have been any other way to solve things at that time.

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context. Perhaps because for many it is an inconvenient truth as Mr. Gore would put it that they would be ready to sacrifice lives for some goal.

Just like Merry and Pippin did. I doubt that the Hobbits taking part knew what awaited them, Formendacil. I doubt they can be expected to have really taken death into consideration. It is as if you're expecting adventurous teens sent to Irak wanting to be part of something grand to also expect their deaths in some explosion. They don't, because they aren't mature or wise enough or in the Hobbits case may have never witnessed or heard of such an end. The volunteering Hobbits can surely be praised for their bravery, but we by taking the context into consideration as Morth said we should do it becomes clear that they did not expect or know death. Who did? The four companions and Gandalf. Bringing the guilt question back to them for sending the Hobbits into battle, well knowing the possible consequence. Ok, except Frodo, he didn't want battle actually.

But, yeah, ok, so the Scouring made sense, no matter who was guilty for the casualties. And so did all the other killing in M-e made in the name of good, peace, order, the Valar, etc. I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

[The Might]

Meh, I give, I give, you point out well that there was a lot of mistrust between Gondorians and Easterlings, especially considering the "Easterlings used for human sacrifices in the Second Age" part which I had previously forgot.

Ok, you win this one. I accept indeed that under these circumstances it would have been fairly unlikely for the Haradrim to accept a Gondorian offer over a Sauronian one. At least at the time of the War of the Ring.

Perhaps had the Kings of Gondor been less suprematist as Pitchwife says, there would have been more chances for peace earlier on and for a closer relation to the southern and eastern tribes. I guess education also plays a big role here, it is easy to subdue and persuade the less educated, so had Gondorians also tried to educate them instead of just fighting them off and conquering them there would have been hope.

I know, I know, a lot of "ifs" above, one could go as far back and say, "and if Feanor had not made the Silmarils" etc., but still I feel that in a different timeline with kinder Gondorians in the Third Age Khand and Harad may have been viable alliance partners.

To end this just had one thought, one slight piece of evidence that the Haradrim and the Variags kept their word and didn't do any evil against Gondor is that the story "Return of the shadow" (correct name?!) actually was centered around evil Gondorians and not revolting Haradrim. Of course, the story was not finished, so it is only slight evidence.


Now to the Hobbits. I agree there Pitchwife, except on one point, namely that of the last question.

Was it necessary? I say it was not. I again feel that there would have been a cleaner way out of it, even in the Age of Men. Always answering by violence is easy and often useful, but not necessarily the only and probably not the best way.

Just a little comparison for which I hoped to not be judged too harshly, I think it again fits since it is highly contemporary, an issue as I am writing the post actually.

It's just like with what Israel is doing in the Gaza strip. Attacked from within this area, like the Hobbits were attacked by the ruffians from the outside. It responds with violence.

Was this action also necessary?

And really bringing it to a bigger scale - do you always need to kill something that's in your way? Because if yes, then we have a lot of killing to do in the time to come.