Patriotism and the Lord of the Rings

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

I’m visiting Washington D.C. for inauguration and this has gotten me thinking about patriotism. And as I am wont to do, I’ve been thinking about Lord of the Rings as well. Naturally, this combination is what birthed this thread.

What sort of patriotism is there is the Lord of the Rings? Is it similar or different from patriotism in today’s world?

Think about the Shire. The Shire is comprised of different groups of families, many of whom hold grudges against one another and probably would not want to be associated with one another (see: Gamgees and Brandybucks). Because of this, can the Shire be defined as a country? It has no central government, but it has definitive borders. Its inhabitants are definitely what I would describe as “patriotic” (For the Shire!), but are they patriots only for their area of residence (i.e. Hobbiton)?

The only time they unite is under direct threat from an outside source (see: Saruman and Wormtongue). When Saruman was defeated, do you think that the hobbits became more unified? (It doesn’t seem to me that hobbits unite by race, only because the hobbits of Bree did not come to the aid of the Shire-hobbits in the Scouring). What does this mean in the real world? How is the response of hobbits when under threat from a foreign enemy different or similar to the response of Americans after 9/11 or Palestinians today?

And then there’s Gondor. Gondor is easier to define using real world terms because their government is defined in a more familiar way. I would define Gondorians as patriotic, because we can see in many arenas how they are willing to die for their country (Boromir, Faramir etc.). How do the people of Gondor show their patriotism under the rule of Denethor versus the rule of Aragorn?

And yadayada… what do you guys think about other cultures? What about the Elves (Rivendell, Lothlorien, Noldor even?) What about the Rohirrim (or Rohanites as Lush would say…)? How come they didn’t overthrow Theoden, even though he was poisoned by Saruman? What does Tolkien’s portrait of the affairs in Middle- Earth say about his views on patriotism as a whole? And then maybe you think this is all a load of something from the back-end of Shadowfax, so tell me that too…

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

To me, since it seems that patriotism is most commonly defined as love of or devotion to country, the kind of patriotism one sees in LotR would depend on how the inhabitants view the land in which they live. Gondor and Rohan appear to have a very clear view of their lands as sovereign nations, and one does see overt love of country shown among their peoples (Boromir, Faramir, and Theoden come most strongly to my mind). The Hobbits seem to have a looser sense of the Shire as a nation, but their love of their land does become evident when their backs are pushed to the wall by the ruffians (a splendid example, I think, of Gandalf's assertion that Hobbits are "brave in a pinch," a situation they try very hard to avoid). 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." Then again, is "country" an actual place, or a sense of community not dependent on a physical location? I think that for the mortals, a sense of physical place is important, as the land is passed down from generation to generation, but among the Elves, it might be less so, since in a long, immortal lifetime, one might get bored with staying in one place (as some of the Noldor did in Valinor), but could carry a devotion to a specific group of people from place to place.

Something to think about....

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

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." Then again, is "country" an actual place, or a sense of community not dependent on a physical location? I think that for the mortals, a sense of physical place is important, as the land is passed down from generation to generation, but among the Elves, it might be less so, since in a long, immortal lifetime, one might get bored with staying in one place (as some of the Noldor did in Valinor), but could carry a devotion to a specific group of people from place to place.

Very perceptive, Ibrin.

If you look at history, particularly in the manner a philologist like Tolkien would, then the migration of clans, including their societal norms, customs and language, would take precedence over nationalism, which is a relatively new process in time. Patriotism, then, should be viewed as an Anglo-Saxon, Celt, Goth or a Norman would see it; that is, identifying with kin or clan over the physical boundaries of a given realm. In France, for instance, it wasn't until the 15th century that there was a consolidation of power by the monarchy sufficient enough to weld disparate Burgundians, Armagnacs, Guiennese, etc., into a unified country. In the Dark Ages, the later Merovingian kings ruled only the Ile de Paris, and had varying influence outside that limited scope.

Tolkien tracks migrations of clans throughout Middle-earth's history: The Eldar from Cuivienen to Aman, the Noldor back to Arda, 1st Age Men from the East, Numenoreons to Gondor and Harad, the Eotheod from Rhovanion to Rohan, the Wainriders and Balchoth from Rhun or Hildor, Hobbits from the Vale of Anduin to the Angle, to the Shire, etc. In nearly every case, the customs and the very nature of the migratory clans were preserved in the lands they conquered or settled, and the patriotism is far less national and more allied to the clan. Gondorions still relive their illustrious Numenorean past, The Rohirrim have progressed very little from their Northmen antecedents, and the Hobbits are clannish in the extreme.

[Lalwendë]

Some great food for thought here!

Originally Posted by Ibrin

Then again, is "country" an actual place, or a sense of community not dependent on a physical location? I think that for the mortals, a sense of physical place is important, as the land is passed down from generation to generation,

This makes great sense - if you have endless life then there is less 'need' for other kinds of immortality, yet mortals can only achieve anything like immortality by living on in the memory of their descendants. Thus things like passing on their property and land become important (as does having 'sons and heirs', thinking of Henry VIII, or maybe living on through doing great and memorable deeds....or in the modern age, just having a nice body and Max Clifford as your PR guru ). That could be one root of patriotism in Middle-earth and in the real world. I'd never thought of that.

Then you should take into account how settled a people are in their land and as Morthoron says, migrants might feel less connected to their land. The Rohirrim definitely give the impression of being a relatively 'new' and developing culture in Rohan (their wealth is portable, their literature still oral and not in libraries) - so their loyalties are to their people and less so to their land. Maybe this is why they do not challenge Theoden in his madness?

Another thought springs to mind about Hobbits. Their sense of loyalty is much quieter and yet they can be stirred into making a big show of their feelings. Very like the British who believe it or not generally do not like a lot of flag waving and find it ostentatious and mutter about 'jingoism' and the like - sometimes this is put down to the appropriation of the national flag and other symbols by the far right (Billy Bragg wrote about this idea) but it's also down to feeling simply embarrassed However, if the occasion warrants it, the flags and the pitchforks are brought out with gusto!

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Then you should take into account how settled a people are in their land and as Morthoron says, migrants might feel less connected to their land. The Rohirrim definitely give the impression of being a relatively 'new' and developing culture in Rohan (their wealth is portable, their literature still oral and not in libraries) - so their loyalties are to their people and less so to their land. Maybe this is why they do not challenge Theoden in his madness?

I suspect that fear (stirred up by Saruman and his allies) gave the common residents of Rohan more immediate concerns than the mental and physical condition of their king (beyond, I imagine, grumbling over why the king was doing nothing to defend them). I do agree with both you and Morthoron; there is a definite sense that even the more developed "nations" of Middle-earth are fairly "primitive," when compared to more developed nations we know today (or even several hundred years ago). But there are definite signs that both Gondor and Rohan have laid claim to their lands and are determined to hold and protect them (Rohan to a lesser degree, being the newer of the two countries). They are cultivating and making use of the resources of their lands in ways that indicate a desire to remain there permanently, not merely as long as the resources hold out. Both have built strongholds, developed forms of military forces, and have plans to deal with the protection and evacuation of their citizens in time of war. No doubt there are other things I'm forgetting. It's too bad that we don't see more of the attitudes of the common folk of these lands, since one can argue that what appears to be "patriotism" in the ruling class may be more of a desire to hold land for reasons of power. Although I think that in Faramir's case, there is a distinct love of his country involved, a desire to protect his people not for glory or duty or even the approval of his father, but because he loves his land, both in its history and in what future it may yet have.

One does wonder about the Dwarves, though...

[Guinevere]

Originally posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel
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."

I think the Lothlorien Elves really love their country as well!

Haldir tells the fellowship that they "live now upon an island amid many perils" and that he fears that if "the Shadow will draw back"

for the Elves it will prove at best a truce, in which they may pass to the Sea unhindered and leave the Middle-earth forever. Alas for Lothlorien that I love! it would be a poor life in a land where no mallorn grew.

and Galadriel tells Frodo:

The love of the Elves for their land and their works is deeper than the deeps of the Sea, and their regret is undying and cannot ever be wholly assuaged. Yet they will cast all away rather than submit to Sauron.

As for the Dwarves, their patriotism seems more allied to the clans. Nevertheless, they have a love for their ancient homes, like the Lonely Mountain, and Khazad-dûm, and try to win them back again even after a long time. The Blue Mountains where they earn their living in the meantime aren't really consideredy their country.

[Groin Redbeard]

You touched on something in your first post, AOR, which I think deserves more attention than it is getting: one's ancestors. Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and even Humans put great stock on their ancestors. For example, when people meet, their house, or a great ancestor comes into play. Take, for example, the simple meeting between Frodo and Gildor. Frodo was a simple Hobbit and would not have known any of the great figures of Elven history, as Gildor probably knew, yet Gildor introduced himself as being a par of the house of Finrod.

[QUOTE=Three is Company]'I am Gildor,' Answered their leader, the Elf who had first hailed him. 'Gildor Inglorion of the house of Finrod.'] Similar happenings like this are common in the books. Tolkien seems to put great emphasis on the heritage of ancestors and ten to one, I think, that people take greater pride in the family than in country. Love of country is much stronger with Men than any other race.

The Dwarves, as well as the Elves divided themselves by their houses: the Broadbeams of Belegost, the Firebeards of Nogrod, the Longbeards of Khazad-dum, ext. Yet family just doesn't seem to cut it for the Dwarves. Born at the Lonely Mountain at the height of its glory, Thorin was just 24 years old when his people were driven into exile by the dragon Smaug. He fled with his father Thráin II and his grandfather King Thrór, but his grandfather was devastated by the loss and left his people, wandering south with a single companion, Nár. Thráin meanwhile led the exiles to Dunland, where they eeked out a meager living. The colony moving to Dunland, instead of moving in with their relatives in the Iron Hills or the Blue Hills, shows that rugged individualism that many people find appealing for the Dwarves. A will to make it on their own, or not make it at all and (just like Hobbits) are able to come to one another's aid in a crisis [such as the War Between Orcs and Dwarves].

Without their home in the Lonely Mountains, however, those Dwarves seem to dwindle until Thorin reclaims it for them once again. The Dwarves are loathed to depart with anything that is there's, so yes land (or more precisely: their realms) would be a major contribution to their patriotism. We see this with Balin's premature attempt to retake Khazad-dum.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Gondor and Rohan appear to have a very clear view of their lands as sovereign nations, and one does see overt love of country shown among their peoples (Boromir, Faramir, and Theoden come most strongly to my mind). The Hobbits seem to have a looser sense of the Shire as a nation, but their love of their land does become evident when their backs are pushed to the wall by the ruffians (a splendid example, I think, of Gandalf's assertion that Hobbits are "brave in a pinch," a situation they try very hard to avoid).)

Hobbits may be "brave in a pinch" but they are rarely in a pinch. Except for a few highlights in their history, Hobbits are a peaceful people protected by greater kingdoms, or the descendants of that kingdom: Dunedein. Gondor, and Rohan to a lesser extent, went to war far more, protecting their sovereignty from invading Haradrim, Easterlings, Orcs, and Corsairs. Therefore, I think we can forgive individuals like Boromir for his actions, his was an act of desperation and despair not patriotism. I am confused, however, why you included Faramir in your examples of overt patriotism.

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).

Love what you are saying Ibri. Nice job.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

(by the way it is interesting to note that almost all the kings in Tolkien's books show more patriotism than the ordinary individual)

I would add a caveat to that statement, Groin, because we know relatively little about what ordinary individuals felt about their countries. This is because, save for the Hobbits, we know virtually nothing about 'commoners', as Tolkien does not touch on their lives at all. But if one extrapolates Tolkien's view of the world into real-world history, we find much the same absence of how common folks felt at any given time. The great unwashed masses have, until only very recently, been avoided like the plague by historians (who were usually under the patronage of a noble in any case).

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. Those legless, armless or blinded individuals who escaped death were trundled off back home, given a tin cup and spent their remaining wretched lives begging for alms in front of their local cathedral. Was Gondor or Rohan any different? Perhaps. With Tolkien's rather Platonic view of enlightened kings (as opposed to the callousness and savagery of the actual monarchy), we would hope the commoners' lot was better. It is, after all, a fantasy.

[Nogrod]

Basically posting just to say that I totally agree with Mort'h last post...

In history patriotism seems to be an ideology for those who can afford it - or those who have been lured into it not realising their efforts (death and suffering) only help those who gain from the conflicts sacrificing nothing themselves.

Okay. I admit being a bit too pessimistic on it up there. There sure are conflicts where people have actually fought literally for their friends and houses and their neighbours & their houses, and that is both brave and great. Although it's not automatically patriotic. But still many have fought for some higher glory be it nation, state or religion or some more vagueish thing like a concept ("freedom", "equality").

The question then becomes what is important enough fighting for and to whom? Or do peple actually fight for the reasons they believe they're fighting for? Like did the death of a Mid-Western 18-year old in Iraq help the cause of freedom? Did the death of an 18-year old Dunleding help the cause of their freedom from Rohan?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by AbercrombieOfRohan

What about the Rohirrim (or Rohanites as Lush would say…)? How come they didn’t overthrow Theoden, even though he was poisoned by Saruman?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Then you should take into account how settled a people are in their land and as Morthoron says, migrants might feel less connected to their land. The Rohirrim definitely give the impression of being a relatively 'new' and developing culture in Rohan (their wealth is portable, their literature still oral and not in libraries) - so their loyalties are to their people and less so to their land. Maybe this is why they do not challenge Theoden in his madness?

I don't think their "nomadishness" actually plays any considerable factor here. I think all nations in Middle-Earth would act like that, nomadic or not nomadic. I would say Groin was right here - like many others, he simply was not a good king, but he was a king nevertheless (like Fengel just shortly before him, too - he had really a bad reputation). The same as Denethor was a Steward. King is a king - any insurrections are usually wrongful in Middle-Earth, the order is indeed monarchy, as Tolkien himself liked it to be, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

If you look at history, particularly in the manner a philologist like Tolkien would, then the migration of clans, including their societal norms, customs and language, would take precedence over nationalism, which is a relatively new process in time. Patriotism, then, should be viewed as an Anglo-Saxon, Celt, Goth or a Norman would see it; that is, identifying with kin or clan over the physical boundaries of a given realm. In France, for instance, it wasn't until the 15th century that there was a consolidation of power by the monarchy sufficient enough to weld disparate Burgundians, Armagnacs, Guiennese, etc., into a unified country. In the Dark Ages, the later Merovingian kings ruled only the Ile de Paris, and had varying influence outside that limited scope.

Well, certainly. One has to bear in mind the fact that the idea of a "national state", or, the idea of a nation bound to some space - a country - is, in fact, generally a very modern thing only a few centuries old. And in Middle-Earth, indeed, it is usually not very important for anybody to defend the land itself - if somebody is defending a piece of land, it is usually because there is some city, some tower, some fortress etc. There is a very slight difference between this modern idea of a "national state" and, let's say, the Gondorians trying to win over Umbar. It has nothing to do with the fact that "this is Gondor", but simply with that that there is a monument of their ancient king and victory over Sauron.

And yadayada… what do you guys think about other cultures? What about the Elves (Rivendell, Lothlorien, Noldor even?)

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

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." Then again, is "country" an actual place, or a sense of community not dependent on a physical location? I think that for the mortals, a sense of physical place is important, as the land is passed down from generation to generation, but among the Elves, it might be less so, since in a long, immortal lifetime, one might get bored with staying in one place (as some of the Noldor did in Valinor), but could carry a devotion to a specific group of people from place to place.

Originally Posted by Guinevere

I think the Lothlorien Elves really love their country as well!

I believe with Elves, indeed, as it has been said, it usually really is not about the land itself (I recall some Elves leaving their homes in Southern Mirkwood just because it was getting too shadowy ), although not completely. Certainly the immortality means outliving any realms, and any changes, including those of the land - and ultimately, the Elves would all leave Middle-Earth for good, whatever realms they had there. Nevertheless, even they are quite "patriotic" about Lórien, or Gondolin and other places, for that matter. The answer is, in my opinion, not in the piece of land itself, but in what the land represents. Gondolin or Nargothrond are places of beauty, the pride of Elvendom. And Haldir's love for Lórien is of similar kind, I am sure: he does not love the piece of ground, but he loves the land blessed by the power of the Lady. Haldir's love for his land is actually of the most "basic" sort: he loves "leaf and branch, water and stone" - I don't know how about you, but I have some places near my home which I like to visit. For Haldir (and other Elves, I think most of them, very likely), this just goes deeper. And think about Treebeard. Now that is the same, and going even further! In fact, if we are to speak of any patriotism, then the Ents are certainly something! And, all right, a patriotism bordering with xenophobia belongs to the Old Forest (although there were other factors as well, and it was mainly the despocy of Old Man Willow and not as much a thing of the trees themselves).

What about Tom Bombadil?

[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.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

To veer back to the original topic for a moment... Finally got my computer and my book in the same place at the same time.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

I am confused, however, why you included Faramir in your examples of overt patriotism.

Largely because of one statement:

"For myself," said Faramir, "I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Numenor, and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise."

This is in distinct contrast to what he says earlier about his brother Boromir, that he was "proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein)." Faramir does not speak of his own glory, but of his love of what he is defending, its present as well as its past -- and possibly he does not speak of its future because that is so plainly hanging in the balance in what appears to be a hopeless situation. But to me, these are some of the most patriotic words spoken in LotR, about the soldier's love for the land which he is fighting to save.

[Kent2010]

I think Patriotism is more than love and willingness to fight for the land. It's an 'us' and 'them' question that William mentioned.

Once a nation has been established the problem facing that place is what's our identity? Or in the words of Bismark...'We have created Germany, now it's time to create Germans.' Should Germany include Austria? Catholics? Those are the types of questions facing any nation.

It was the same in the US, this is the Constitution of the United States of America, but what does it mean to be an American? Geography became one of the most important subjects of study, because it named things, it identified places. Maps were rampant. Land surveying was a popular profession.

I'm not well versed in LOTR, but will ask a couple things and maybe something useful to add. What is the importance of maps in Middle-earth? Is it something to identify places, and within what are the people like? Why do people want to avoid Lorien and Fangorn?

And The Hobbits, they might have a loose conception of The Shire as a 'nation,' but there is a distrust for outsiders and there even is an 'us' and 'them' identity from within....'There's something queer about that Bilbo, he's not like us - oh and those Bucklanders are odd too.'

I think patriotism implies both, a sense of land, but also an identity. What does it mean to be a Gondorian? Denethor loved Boromir more than Faramir, but why? Was it because Faramir didn't represent Denethor's image of a 'Gondorian'?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not well versed in LOTR, but will ask a couple things and maybe something useful to add. What is the importance of maps in Middle-earth? Is it something to identify places, and within what are the people like? Why do people want to avoid Lorien and Fangorn?

Well, going back to the First Age at least, the feeling is definitely rather more tribal than geographical- we see, for example the Noldor and Sindar placing loyalty in their own kings, even when they were geographically mingled (as with the Sindar of Hithlum, who considered themselves Thingol's subjects). The exception was Gondolin, but then Gondolin was unique in its total isolation. And with Men, the Houses of Hador and Beor accepted 'vassalage' to Elf-kings on a quasi-feudal pattern, but the Haladin remained independent though residing in territory which was nominally Elvish; and the Green-Elves were never considered to have fallen under Thingol's rule simply because they crossed the mountains into Beleriand.


A lot of this was I think Tolkien's oft-expressed dislike of homogenization. It was important to him that the Rohirrim live under their own laws notwithstanding Gondor's semi-suzerainity; and Gimli's folk at Aglaraond were an independent people under the 'protection' of the Crown. Similary the Shire was *not* placed under direct Arnorian rule, except for the basic obligations to "speed the King's messengers" and keep the Bridge in repair.

[Rumil]

Nice to see use of huge tracts of land and oppressed masses in the same thread

I like the ideas above that -

Settled men and hobbits identified with 'their' land

Nomadic men (and hobbits?) identified with their tribe

Dwarves identified with what they or their ancestors had made (Moria, Jewellery etc)

Elves identified with their leaders (which given their longevity in absence of nasty accidents covers land and tribe too in some ways)

Caveats I suppose are the low population density of Middle Earth, and likely insularity of most inhabitants, after all Sam had never been more than 20 miles from home and might have considered Buckland 'foreign' let alone Bree.

In todays world its strange to think how Dark Age kingdoms could be less than 50 miles wide, and that even comparatively recently there were great differences between counties (eg Cornwall and Devon; Yorks and Lancs) let alone countries.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Nice to see use of huge tracts of land and oppressed masses in the same thread

Yeah... the screenplay to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Lush]

I see the "Rohanites" are now famous! I think that if I ever run away, I'll start a band called Lush & the Rohanites. Weird electro-pop. For children.

Anyhoo,

What does Tolkien’s portrait of the affairs in Middle- Earth say about his views on patriotism as a whole

I've always appreciated Tolkien's nuanced portrayal of patriotism with regard to Faramir and Boromir. When Faramir rejects the Ring - it can, in one sense, be seen as highly unpatriotic:

"But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo." - The Two Towers.

(Let me know if that quote is off, btw, I still have not been reunited with my books, and am relying on Wiki)

But Boromir had already taught us, at that point, that patriotism can be meaningless, if not downright destructive, if you lose perspective. Faramir is able, to use a very over-used phrase - "think outside the box." There's something about the nature of the Ring that Faramir knows he can't afford to overlook, and that, perhaps, is true patriotism - thinking beyond the norm when you are called to do so.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

But Boromir had already taught us, at that point, that patriotism can be meaningless, if not downright destructive, if you lose perspective. Faramir is able, to use a very over-used phrase - "think outside the box." There's something about the nature of the Ring that Faramir knows he can't afford to overlook, and that, perhaps, is true patriotism - thinking beyond the norm when you are called to do so.

Indeed, Faramir has echoes of Von Stauffenburg. I've never really understood how the German Officer's oath to Hitler had such a crippling effect on potential
resistance, since ethics and morality should always trump "My country right or wrong".

[William Cloud Hicklin]

since ethics and morality should always trump "My country right or wrong".

That's really a very modern notion, and fairly American, or at least a reflection of American thinking's influence on the world. The old paradigm, which certainly dominated the aristocratic Junker officer corps, was indeed mein Kaiser/Vaterland/Fuehrer, richtig oder falsch. The idea of disobeying an order just because you personally disagreed with it (for any reason) was utterly alien- as indeed it would have been to Napoleon's marechals or Marlborough's subordinates. It's fairly hard today to grasp the extent to which the Subject's Duty of Obedience was the assumed basis of political thinking in former times.

Even under the original Hague Convention of 1899, the first attempt to create or at least codify a Law of Armed Conflict, responsibility for a war crime fell entirely on the authority who ordered it: his subordinates could not be held culpable for obeying the order. In the Neumann Trial (1922) the Leipzig Supreme Court explicitly ruled that Befehl ist Befehl was a complete defense. (The Nuremburg Tribunals may have advanced 'human rights,' but as courts of law they were pretty much kangaroo courts).

[Aiwendil]

William Cloud Hicklin wrote:

That's really a very modern notion, and fairly American, or at least a reflection of American thinking's influence on the world.

I agree that as stated this is a fairly modern idea (modern in the broad post-1500 or so sense). But I don't agree that it's fundamentally American. On the contrary, the idea of a 'higher law' that takes precedence over loyalty to a particular government - or even a particular nation - is fundamental to a lot of Enlightenment-era thinking. It's fairly clearly expressed in Locke and Rousseau, for instance, and one can perhaps find its roots in Hobbes. Indeed, I think one could argue that its ultimate roots are found in Plato and Aristotle.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Actually, I meant 'modern' in a post-WWII sense. While one can trace the history of the notion to the enlightenment philosophers, and their practical students the American revolutionists, as a matter of recognized law I can't find a trace of it prior to the London Declaration (1944). The top Nazis deserved everything they got; but the technical basis for stringing them up was a blatant ex post facto exercise in retroactive law.

[Aiwendil]

All right, but surely there's a difference between a notion's existence or even prevalence and its codification in international law.

[Kent2010]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

Indeed, Faramir has echoes of Von Stauffenburg. I've never really understood how the German Officer's oath to Hitler had such a crippling effect on potential
resistance, since ethics and morality should always trump "My country right or wrong".

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but just will mention a Holocaust scholar Christopher Browning in Ordinary Men really does blow up the entire obediance argument. It's interesting that during the trials the defense typically was "I had to shoot, or I would have been shot," but no evidence of this exists. What took place is supported more by the Milgram experiment and Zimbardo's prison experiment. Nazi's executed more out of conformity than obediance to orders from higher up. When the "final solution" in Poland first began, Major Trapp a veteran of World War I, told his battalion they did not have to take part in the shootings (and Trapp was not going against any direct orders from superiors, he didn't get 'punished' by anyone). There was an authority figure telling them "you don't have to do this" only 20% went with Trapp's solution. As the war dragged on that 20% got smaller and smaller, although that might have been due to the option to not take part had all but disappeared.

With the SS the obediance argument may be made, because to deny an order in the SS was suicide, but the SS was pretty small compared to the ordinary Police Battalions that Browning writes about and that Trapp was a part of.

Maybe this can be tied into patriotism because you see anti-semitism all over Europe throughout this time. In America too, in Nazi Germany the anti-semitism became radical and turned to genocide, but it existed everywhere. The idea of "we are superior," because we are Germans, French...etc stuck with everyone, not just those in charge.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, over 20,000 German soldiers were executed during the war for failing to carry out orders (of various sorts). It wasn't an idle threat.

But of course even by Nuremburg standards the argument from coercion would have been considered valid *if* the defendants could prove it (mostly they couldn't). The standard defense was "An order is an order," which according to normative law up until WWII *was* a complete defense.

I don't deny that a very great many, probably the majority, of those Germans who took part of atrocities would have even if they did have (or believed they had) a choice. Human beings generally let power go to their heads (which is why they should be entrusted with as little of it as possible).

[Kent2010]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Well, over 20,000 German soldiers were executed during the war for failing to carry out orders (of various sorts). It wasn't an idle threat.

But of course even by Nuremburg standards the argument from coercion would have been considered valid *if* the defendants could prove it (mostly they couldn't). The standard defense was "An order is an order," which according to normative law up until WWII *was* a complete defense.

I don't deny that a very great many, probably the majority, of those Germans who took part of atrocities would have even if they did have (or believed they had) a choice. Human beings generally let power go to their heads (which is why they should be entrusted with as little of it as possible).

Sorry if it sounded like I was saying those in charge had no culpability, they did, and there were orders from high up. Especially when the Nazis started losing the Eastern Front there virtually was no choice. Also, Browning's book I referenced above just deals with the Police Battalions, which were under Himmler, but were seperate from the SS and were under different rules. Most were middle-aged men who could not make it into the army or the SS. You definitely would be punished if you were in the SS and disobeyed any kind of order.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Reminder: The discussion concerns primarily LotR, not other wars...

Can haz on-topic?

[Lush]

Can haz on-topic?

No can has! On-topic mine!

Er... anyway...

The comparison of Faramir to Von Stauffenburg is interesting. I've always thought about Faramir in the context of Mikhail Bulgakov for some reason... scribbling "The White Guard" as a hope against hope.

[Faramir Jones]

This is a very interesting topic; but I'd first like to give my contribution to one thing that has also been discussed here:

Theoden's popularity: Tolkien wrote in the essay 'The Battles of the Fords of Isen' in Unfinished Tales that Theoden's health began to fail 'early in 3014'. Before this sickness, he had been 'much loved by all his kin and people'.

There had been unpopular kings in Rohan before. Theoden's grandfather and predecessor, Fengel, was 'not remembered with praise'. He was 'greedy of food and of gold, and at strife with his marshals, and with his children'. His son Thengel therefore went to Gondor and served the Steward. He married a Gondorian woman, and their eldest children, including Theoden, were born there.

It appears that while Fengal might have been a bad king, he was probably not a tyrant, doing things that were 'unconstitutional'. The legitimacy of his rule was not in doubt. Presumably, this was also the case regarding Theoden under Grima's influence. He, at the latter's instigation, probably gave orders that, while unpopular, were not illegal. (Grima, or rather his true master, was too clever to make such an obvious error.)

Gondorian patriotism: Looking at patriotism in general in The Lord of the Rings, I feel that Gondorians, their country being the nearest to a twentieth-century nation-state in the book, did have a sense of patriotism. They and previous generations had, after all, been fighting Sauron for millennia. Tolkien made it clear in his Letters that Sauron ‘desired to be a God-king…;if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world’.

Early on in the book, Boromir pointed out that by the Gondorians' valour ‘alone are peace and freedom maintained in the lands behind us, bulwark of the West.’ When Galdor spoke of the ‘waning might of Gondor’, he was rebuked by Boromir: ‘Gondor wanes, you say. But Gondor stands, and even the end of its strength is still very strong.’

This pride in Gondor is also seen in Faramir, who says that while war was necessary, he only loved what it defended, ‘the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom.’ Tolkien said that Faramir was the character most like him.

This pride also existed among Gondorians in general, seen when Beregond, an ordinary soldier, told Pippin, ‘we have this honour: ever we bear the brunt of the chief hatred of the Dark Lord, for that hatred comes out of the depths of time and over the deeps of the Sea’.

Gondor was also sophisticated enough to distinguish between the kingdom and the king, still enduring as a state despite having a vacant throne, the kings’ hereditary chief ministers ruling as hereditary regents, experienced in person by Pippin in Book 5, Chapter I, when he arrives in Minas Tirith. When he agreed to swear allegiance, he first swore ‘fealty and service to Gondor’.

There also appears to be a song that resembles a national anthem, sung by Aragorn:

Gondor! Gondor, between the Mountains and the Sea!
West Wind blew there; the light upon the Silver Tree
Fell like bright rain in gardens of the Kings of old.
O proud walls! White towers! O wingéd crown and throne of gold!
O Gondor, Gondor! Shall men behold the Silver Tree,
Or West Wind blow again between the mountains and the Sea?

Among these references to Gondor’s geographical location and national symbols, there is also a reference to the Silver Tree. In 2852 T.A., the White Tree died; and because no seedling could be found, the ‘Dead Tree’ was ‘left standing’. Aragorn had earlier served in disguise King Thengel of Rohan and Ecthelion II of Gondor. The song may be a composition of Aragorn’s, or a partial and complete composition by another. If the second, the song may have been written after the death of that White Tree, looking back to happier times before the event, when Gondor was stronger, and wondering if they would return again.

While it is nowhere described as a national anthem, that song is of such a nature and Gondor is such an 'advanced' state that the possibility exists of the latter having a national anthem.