Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693863)

Aragorn taking over the leadership is a form of arrest, if done in such a manner as to dethrone Gandalf as the outright leader and authority of the Company and the quest.

Originally Posted by FotR; A Journey in the Dark

You followed my lead almost to disaster in the snow, and have said no word of blame.

Originally Posted by FotR; A Journey in the Dark

"But the question is: who will follow me, if I lead you there?"

"I will," said Gimli eagerly.

"I will," said Aragorn heavily.

Originally Posted by Belegorn (Post 693869)

Aragorn was already leading the Company.

Also Aragorn said he would follow Gandalf .

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693844)

I get the feeling in the Hobbit Tolkein doesn't bill Gandalf as a Maiar, only a wizard, who could indeed be harmed by ordinary weapons.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693868)

I actually think this was just an inconsistency with the true nature of Gandalf from the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings. I don't believe anything but a Maiar could have killed Gandalf the Grey, and a powerful one at that.

Originally Posted by Corsair_Caruso (Post 693872)

I disagree.

I think it is important to note the difference between the eternal and immortally wise Olorin the Maia (Maiar is plural, Maia singular) and Gandalf the Wizard/Istar. Tolkien states in Unfinished Tales that the bodies of the Istari are real bodies, not just physical forms that the Maiar and Valar habitually wore to interact with the Children of Iluvatar.



Let's look at these points. The bodies of the Istari could hunger, thirst, be slain, they forgot much of their wisdom and knowledge they had in their lives as Maiar in Valinor, and beforehand, and they could even fall into mortal sin from ignorance, fear, lust for power, etc... These were real bodies, that their incorruptible ëalar forms inhabited in a fashion similar to the fëar of the Mirröanwi inhabit their hröar. I'm fully of the opinion that Gandalf could have been slain by the wolves, or the Orks, or Gandalf could even have starved to death in the dungeons of Dol Guldur or died of exposure or thirst in his travels in Middle-earth, had he not taken care. Was he hardier than he looked? Definitely. He could probably survive being deprived of food or water longer than a man of his apparent age, perhaps even better than most Men, maybe even as well as Elves. But could he starve to death or die of dehydration? I think so. Could a Warg have ripped his throat out and would he have bled to death? I'm sure. It didn't happen, because Gandalf had the skills and power to prevent it, but it could have happened.

The difference between Olorin and Gandalf is pretty big, in my opinion. Gandalf, being embodied in a physical body that was his own and not just a fancy meat-suit he fabricated for himself, was subject to hormones and aching joints and adrenaline and being cranky because he was cold or hungry. He could forget spells and get frustrated and irritable because of it. Olorin was not subject to these same problems. Gandalf had much stricter limits on his authority and power than Olorin did, and Gandalf was much more easily slain than Olorin was. The two identities are distinct, though obviously intimately connected.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693868)

I actually think this was just an inconsistency with the true nature of Gandalf as a Maiar from the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings. I don't believe anything but a Maiar could have killed Gandalf the Grey, and a powerful one at that.

Originally Posted by Silmarillion; Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

Sauron himself came forth: and he wrestled with Gil-galad and Elendil, and they both were slain, and the sword of Elendil broke under him as he fell. But Sauron also was thrown down

Originally Posted by FotR; The Council of Elrond

I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown, and Isildur cut the Ring from his hand

Originally Posted by Letter #131

Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of slaying Sauron.

Originally Posted by Belegorn (Post 693874)

I have to disagree. Sauron, while bearing the One Ring was defeated by Gil-galad and Elendil the Tall. An Elf and a Dúnadan. Hardly Maiar themselves.


These are some of the references to Sauron dueling with an Elf and Dúnadan and both parties killing each other, like what happened with Gandalf and the Balrog. I'd say it's possible that Gandalf could be killed with weapons these guys possessed.

Originally Posted by Smug the Fabulous (Post 693877)

Proof of the physical fallibility of the Istari: Saruman. He was a powerful wizard and leader of the Istari, yet he was killed simply by having his throat slit.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693859)

Not to the level of accuracy and imminence with which Aragorn suggested. The question remains unanswered. Aragorn could not have known without at least some inclination of truth that an ancient terror may be present in Moria powerful enough to kill Gandalf, and if he was to warn of the dangers of death in Moria, it would have been wiser to have expressed it for all the Company (Frodo nearly got killed by an orc spear, for instance, and Pippin could have fallen to his doom), and not just for the sake of Gandalf. He even suggested in Moria that Pippin should make use of Gandalf as the lead whilst they still had him to guide them. The level of accuracy in Aragorn's words is almost psychic.

Originally Posted by Morthoron (Post 693880)

Do you simply argue for argument's sake, without foundation or research? The Gift of Foresight. Tolkien. Used it all the time. Correct foretelling of events. By many different characters. Throughout The Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings. Accurate. Foresight. A lot.

Mandos. Eol. Melian. Finrod. Malbeth (callled "the Seer" for a reason). Andreth. Elrond. Glorfindel. Galadriel. Dirhael and Ivorwen. Boromir and Faramir's dreams. Aragorn. Saruman. These are just off the top of my head, because the list of characters that exhibit the gift of foresight is extensive.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693882)

If Aragorn's foresight was so strong and well respected, why did Gandalf not take heed? And what happened to Gandalf's own foresight? Aragorn had nothing more than gut feel to guide him to make his eerily accurate prediction.

Originally Posted by Corsair_Caruso (Post 693884)

Perhaps Gandalf did take heed; maybe he deemed the possibility of his death in Moria an acceptable risk as compared to the greater possibility of the Ring's capture on any of the alternative roads.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693885)

That is not the impression I got through his mood for much of the journey in Moria. He seemed as though he was content that he made the right call. That all changed when the drums started to roll.

Originally Posted by Corsair_Caruso (Post 693886)

Perhaps. We're really all delving into our impressions and personal interpretations of Gandalf's inner thoughts, decisions, and motives, at this point.

Originally Posted by FotR; A Journey in the Dark

I will follow your lead now - if this last warning does not move you. It is not of the Ring, nor of us others that I am thinking now, but of you, Gandalf. And I say to you: if you pass the doors of Moria, beware!

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693887)

I think Novices and Newcomers allows for some fun along the way. The more serious letter of the law stuff is perhaps more evident in the other sections.

Originally Posted by Belegorn (Post 693888)

I'd like to know where Aragorn forecasted Gandalf's "imminent doom". I know Aragorn mentioned his misgivings to Gandalf about going into Moria, but where is the passage of Aragorn saying, "If you go into Moria Gandalf, you will die."



Foresight is of two kinds according to Tolkien. The one involves pre-vision, such as the gods who were allowed to see parts of the future by Eru. Then there is forecasting about a future not seen, "the deduction of the wise" by which "any mind, whether of the Valar or the Incarnate, may deduce by reason what will or may come to pass" [Osanwe-kenta, note 6].

I do not think Saruman's staff breaking was symbolic of his powers being lost. When Gandalf's staff broke he was still using his powers to fight the Balrog.

Originally Posted by Belegorn (Post 693888)

I do not think Saruman's staff breaking was symbolic of his powers being lost. When Gandalf's staff broke he was still using his powers to fight the Balrog.

Originally Posted by Corsair_Caruso (Post 693892)

I actually do think there's a difference between the two; I interpret the breaking of Gandalf's staff as being less symbolic than Saruman's, because the breaking of Saruman's staff was, specifically, a punative action taken by Gandalf against the rebel Istar. I think Gandalf's increased authority, especially considering his statement that he was "Saruman as he should have been," was given him by Eru in part specifically to address Saruman's rebellion and betrayal. Gandalf took precedence over and above Saruman, gave him the chance to repent, and then punished him and voided his power and authority.

Now, I don't believe the Istari's magical power came from their staves, but I do believe that (if you'll pardon the reference), as the wands in Harry Potter, the staves facilitated the exercise of their native power which, if you'll remember, had been restricted by their embodiment as material, biological beings, as well as by statute of the Valar. I think Saruman's power was lessened by the breaking of his staff, but that Gandalf's authority may have extended even so far as to actually limit Saruman's power further, as punishment for his crimes and to prevent him from using his considerable power to further damage the Free Peoples.

Keep in mind, this is just my personal interpretation.

The loss of Gandalf's staff, on the other hand, was as the result of no punative action, specifically meant to restrict or lessen his status, but likely as a result of Gandalf exercising such a great amount of power against his foe. It may very well have lessened his ability to use "magic," but I don't think it had the same effect as the loss of Saruman's staff had on him.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693882)

If Aragorn's foresight was so strong and well respected, why did Gandalf not take heed? And what happened to Gandalf's own foresight? Aragorn had nothing more than gut feel to guide him to make his eerily accurate prediction.

Originally Posted by Morthoron (Post 693896)

Seriously? Did anyone heed the Dooms of Mandos the Vala that all came horribly true? Do you think the gift of foresight is constant for every minute of one's day? The gift of foresight is a notable attribute of Elves and the Dunedain, including Aragorn's direct ancestors. It does not mean that such foresight will be heeded, or that every action comes with foresight. Cassandra was cursed with true foresight gone unheeded in classical mythos.

But you see, this is the aspect of your posting that I find insincere. You argue in circles without proper documentation or research, merely opinions -- even questioning the author himself.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693897)

Most of the Company members showed some degree of foresight, in that they all feared the darkness of Moria, and wanted no part of it. Gandalf and Gimli were the exceptions.

Originally Posted by Corsair_Caruso (Post 693900)

I'd actually say that Gimli was the only exception. Gandalf still didn't want to go through Moria, he simply decided to do so despite that fear. He wasn't the only one.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693897)

Most of the Company members showed some degree of foresight, in that they all feared the darkness of Moria, and wanted no part of it. Gandalf and Gimli were the exceptions.

Originally Posted by Morthoron (Post 693902)

What has that got to do with what you were trying to argue about? Again, you are talking in circles. You questioned Aragorn's foresight, and I provided ample characters who at one time or another exhibited true, uncanny and accurate foresight. Also, trepidation or fear does not equal foresight.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693903)

Of course I see that Aragorn showed at least some insight and foresight on Moria, having been in there himself previously.But I don't believe he had a gift for it beyond his Ranger instincts and common sense.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693903)

Of course I see that Aragorn showed at least some insight and foresight on Moria, having been in there himself previously, but I don't believe he had a gift for it beyond his Ranger instincts and common sense.

Originally Posted by Morthoron (Post 693905)

That is an opinion that is unfortunately invalid. You find his foresight uncanny to the point you consider it unbelievable, then you claim that Tolkien himself was in error for portraying him that way. I offer you the fact that the gift of foresight was an ongoing and verifiable attribute throughout all the Ages of Middle-earth, that Tolkien himself mentioned such a gift, and among Aragorn's Dunedain ancestors that attribute was noted.

In future, less opinion more research, thank you.

Originally Posted by Moonraker (Post 693906)

Aragorn incorrectly feared that there was no exit from from the realm of Moria. He also did not fear for his other companions as voicefully (Frodo and Pippin both could have been killed). His foresight had limitations, and I do believe Tolkien was wrong to make it seem like Aragorn singled out and suspected Gandalf as the sole target to fall in Moria.

Originally Posted by Appendix B: The Third Age

they were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear.

Originally Posted by UT; The Istari

their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advice and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavor to dominate and corrupt.

Originally Posted by Belegorn (Post 693908)

A few things.

Regarding the staffs of the Istari, if they were intricately linked to a wizard's power, why did Saruman not take Gandalf's staff when he imprisoned him? I do not recall ever seeing a Maia or Vala having the ability to take or diminish the powers of another Maia. Has this been accounted possible in the annals of Arda?

I'm not certain of the idea of the native powers of the Istari being restricted by their embodiment. Rather their embodiment was meant "to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men" [UT; The Istari]. I think they were not to use their powers to have the Children of Eru heed them under duress and to not appear too grand, thus coming in humble bodies, that is, as older men.





@ Moon yes they feared Moria and Boromir did not wish to go to Lothlórien either.

Your 2nd quote by Aragorn again does not sound like his concern was specifically a death sentence.

"I say to you: if you pass the doors of Moria, beware!" [FotR; A Journey in the Dark]

"Did I not say to you: if you pass the doors of Moria, beware? Alas that I spoke true!" [FotR; Lothlórien]

What was it he was speaking of when he said beware? Was it "imminent death" or something else which just happened to lead to it?

Originally Posted by Appendix A: The North-kingdom and the Dúnedain

the counsel of the Lossoth was good, by chance or by foresight... So perished Arvedui

Originally Posted by Belegorn (Post 693908)

A few things.

Regarding the staffs of the Istari, if they were intricately linked to a wizard's power, why did Saruman not take Gandalf's staff when he imprisoned him?

Originally Posted by Belegorn (Post 693908)

AI do not recall ever seeing a Maia or Vala having the ability to take or diminish the powers of another Maia. Has this been accounted possible in the annals of Arda?

Originally Posted by Belegorn (Post 693908)

I'm not certain of the idea of the native powers of the Istari being restricted by their embodiment. Rather their embodiment was meant "to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men" [UT; The Istari]. I think they were not to use their powers to have the Children of Eru heed them under duress and to not appear too grand, thus coming in humble bodies, that is, as older men.

Originally Posted by Nerwen (Post 693933)

Let’s get back to the original question, “Should Aragorn have placed Gandalf under arrest?”

The answer seems clear: yes. Yes, he should have.

Originally Posted by Corsair_Caruso (Post 693900)

I'd actually say that Gimli was the only exception. Gandalf still didn't want to go through Moria, he simply decided to do so despite that fear. He wasn't the only one.

Originally Posted by Morthoron (Post 693937)

Rather than Gandalf, perhaps Aragorn should've been more concerned with Trolls. I believe Trolls are more of an issue. Excuse me, I mean Trolls were more of an issue.

Originally Posted by Nerwen (Post 693933)

Let’s get back to the original question, “Should Aragorn have placed Gandalf under arrest?”

The answer seems clear: yes. Yes, he should have. For then, instead of further tedious footslogging, we could have had an awesome fantasy cop show, featuring Aragorn as the Middle-earth equivalent of the angry police captain!
(Site generates phrases typifying the stock character, e.g., “The Angry Police Captain just threw his mug at you”, “The Angry Police Captain thinks your partner is getting too close on this one”, “The Angry Police Captain takes it black with three sugars”.)

Much of this is easily adapted. Thus:

The Angry Ranger Captain doesn’t give a damn about jurisdiction when there are lives on the line.

The Angry Ranger Captain doesn’t have room for screw-ups in the Fellowship.

The Angry Ranger Captain took you off the Moria case.

The Angry Ranger Captain hates to do this, but it’s for your own good.


Try it and see!:smokin: