If the ringbearer died
 

What would have happend if the ring bearer died? Most likely the ring would have gone to Aragorn correct?

I just dont really understand why it was so important that he didnt die. Somone couldve just taken it after him, he wasnt special or anything, just given the title Ringbearer.

Actually I think Frodo was someone special in that, by my views, he was specifically chosen by Eru to taken the Ring to Mount Doom where it could be destroyed.

I have always thought since I read LOTR that only Frodo Baggins had the strength to carry that heavy, evil burden to Mount Doom because had anyone else been chosen I believe they would have succumbed to its evil power a LOOOOOOOOONG time before he did!

No there was no one else who could carry the Ring.....no one in ME!

Well, we see Sam take it in the books when he thinks Frodo is dead. Sam would be the only other person in Middle Earth that could even attempt the burden.
Who knows if he would succeed or if he would eventually break down from grief...
Galadriel can't take it because she would've been easily corrupted by it because she already possessed Nenya - the same goes for Gandalf and Elrond and their rings.
Though Aragorn is a strong man, he is still a man - and they are the weakest of soul... so, though he may be strong at first he may eventually succumb to the power.
So, yes, I think that if Frodo died then Middle Earth probably would've perished. As Galadriel says, "If you cannot find a way, no one will."

Whoa, Nellie, Morgoth Bauglir! I think you need to to go back and pick up on a major theme of the book, there.

The whole point that Tolkien was trying to make was that Men, Elves, and Dwarves would have quickly succumbed to the power of the One Ring. At worst, if they had taken the Ring, they would have been overthrown by the will of Sauron, and become his servant. At best, they would have overthrown Sauron, but become just as evil as He was.

It was only the Hobbits who had the type of spirit that could not be subdued by the power of the Ring. The worst Hobbit around - Gollum - only wanted to hide away and keep the Ring for his own. The best of the bunch - Bilbo and Frodo, were able to carry it many years without any desire to use its power to conquer or rule M.E.

It is the opinion of many (myself included) that Hobbits were created specifically by Eru Ilúvatar, in order to have one Race who could resist the lure of Sauron's Ring. Hobbits are by nature a quiet, unassuming race, with no desire to rule or control others. They make the perfect Ringbearers.

If Aragorn had taken up the burden of the Ring, he may have resisted its allure for a short time, but eventually he would have succumbed to its temptation. At that time, he may have defeated Sauron, but the Ring would have corrupted him utterly, and he would have become as Evil a force as The Dark Lord Himself.

Believe me, Frodo was not "replacable".

Veerry interesting point, Birdie! The hobbits especially created for the task of destroying the ring?! Now that's something to ponder! Especially the thought that they had no desire to rule and control others, making their innate nature eminently suitable for that responsibility...

Actually, it is stated in LOTR that dwarves didn't succumb to the power of Sauron through the rings. The rings awakened the lust for riches in them, but that was all. However, I doubt one of them could have destroyed the Ring - although for different reasons than men, for instance.
It seems you're right - Hobbits were the chosen race.

Indeed they were and I believe that Frodo was specifically chosen out by Eru from among the other Hobbits especially for this task because only he had the strength of spirit and will to do it...

Take a look at the conversation between Frodo and Gandalf below. I've quote from the movie here but I know this same conversation was on the book and I believe its nearly worded the same in both places...

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Arathiriel ]

I do love the part in the book when Sam is contemplating his role now that Frodo (not really) is dead. I love the idea of a hobbit as simple and honest and pure hearted as Sam carrying on the quest. I love his thoughts there about Samwise the Great. They seem so humorous when you read them, but truly when you look into Sam's thoughts and see him shake off these desires to continue the quest for Frodo. This little hobbit was about to take on the hardest task imaginable out of pure love and devotion. Just think of that. who but a hobbit? Frodo was meant to be the bearer, that's clear, adn what Tolkien did, I might add, using Gollum to ultimately end evil was brilliant, but I do think that if Frodo had actually died, Sam would've made an excellent Ringbearer. I don't know if he could've withstood the final test as Frodo did not, but I have much faith in his pure heart. I love Sam!

Sam would've only attempted to finish what Frodo started out of loyalty to Frodo. We don't know what he would've done had Frodo never been assigned the task.

Good points dear people!!!!! Me??? Replaceable? Who knows?

However, if Eru had created hobits in secret for a special purpose, then that would explain why no one knows where they come from, and why they seem to live in secret fro so long without anyone knowing they exist eccept for an elect few.

I had forgotten that Eru had created Hobbits for the purpose of bearing the ring...I need to go read my history again. The reason, besides being made secretly, no one knew about the Hobbits and the Shire was for so long Gandalf had the Rangers guarding the borders of the Shire. Tolkien said himself in the beginning of the Lord of the Rings that Hobbits hid from Big People. If Men had saw Hobbits out walking or so forth outside of the Shire they would have probably would have thought them children. Tolkien said Hobbits had a magic about them that hid them from Men. They were very fast to hide because of their size. But yes if Frodo had died on the road to Mordor, the Fellowship would have felled and the Ring would have been taken. No one could have held the power of pure evil and not been swayed by it's force.

Look people, Tolkien never said that the Hobbits were created by Eru to deal with the ring. You've got to be more careful about what you accept to be true and factual.

NO.

Mhoram - I never thought I'd be saying this but it's good to remember once in a while that technically speaking NONE of this is factual. The idea of hobbits being created for this particular eventuality (though it isn't one I go for, personally) is an interesting one and isn't specifically refuted by anything Tolkien said or wrote, so why not speculate?

And Morgoth, I'm a little confused by your question. Do you mean "if the Ringbearer dies, who has the ownership rights to the Ring"? Aragorn might be the answer, but personally I'd plump for Sauron - he's the one who made the Ring and his spirit still owns it in the way it will eventually corrupt anyone whose hands it passes through. It's true that Isildur won it from Sauron, and all of those who had it afterwards only found it because it was lost, then stolen (Gollum) lost again (Bilbo) and inherited from someone who didn't know its original ownership (Frodo). If you want to be strict, the fact that Isildur never voluntarily gave up the Ring and that Gollum stole it from Smeagol would make Aragorn the person to lay a claim to it, but he never does - for obvious reasons - and the consensus is pretty much that Sauron is the only true Master of the Ring; anyone else who is in possession of it (Bilbo, Frodo, et al) is essentially racing against time, trying to somehow get rid of or get away from the Ring before its effects destroy him entirely.

So if the Ringbearer died, the Ring would not be inherited by a "new legitimate owner" because the only person/entity whose legitimate property it was, was Sauron. Instead it would pass to whoever the Ringbearer's heir was, or whoever happened to be around, depending on the circumstances. (After all, when Isildur died the Ring just slipped to the bottom of the water, and it's not like when Gandalf realized what Bilbo had found, his first thought was "Hey, this is Aragorn's property, let's see if he still wants it"). Case in point; when Sam thinks Frodo is dead, he thinks "And the council also gave him companions, so that the mission should not fail" - it never occurs to Sam to go off and hand it to Aragorn (hey, it's his responsibility now, hooray!) he only realizes that the Fellowship had been there by way of reinforcement - one of them could, at a pinch, take the Ring and become Ringbearer if the original Ringbearer were incapacitated or killed. That's exactly what Sam does, but he never thinks of himself as owning or inheriting the Ring - as indeed,neither does anyone else.

And for the record, I doubt Sam could have made it to Mount Doom on his own. I base this on the fact that he only went about a hundred feet before deciding that he couldn't do it "Not without Mr. Frodo" and turned around to go back to him BEFORE he knew that Frodo was still alive - as far as Sam was concerned, he was going to die protecting Frodo's body and then who knew what would happen. This isn't to take anything away from Sam (Frodo could never have done it by himself either) just to say that their two characters combined made success possible whereas just one of them would have collapsed before reaching the mountain.

The reason that it isn't ok to speculate about this particular thing is that while there may be nothing to refute it there is certainly nothing to support it aside from a wish for hobbits to be especially special.

However, I would not say that there is nothing to refute it. I will not fully enumerate the various refutations, but I will provide an example or two.

The idea above stems partly from the idea that Hobbits are not Men. This is patently false. Hobbits share an origin with all other Men, from the Haladin of the First Age to the Wood Woses (Ghan-buri-ghan's folk).

While it may be heartening to think of God Almighty intervening in the mortal world, it just didn't happen very often, and in the few instances that He did they were just that, instances. Short periods of time in which great cataclysms took place. Almost every time in which a great Power had to do with Middle-earth it was a Vala, or because of a Vala. It is out of character for Eru to make things happen slowly and secretly. If Eru wanted Sauron to be gone, he would have been gone with a snap of His ineffable fingers.

"It is," and it was. No dilly-dallying.

Where does it say that Hobbits are related to Men? (I'm not arguing with you, I don't have enough background for that, I'm just wondering where you got that from, because I didn't pick that up from the books at all.)

I think that who gets the Ring depends when we're hypothesizing that Frodo died. If it's in Mordor--case closed. Who's the only Fellowship member around? Sam. But if, say, Frodo caught pneumonia and died on Caradhras, it would be a little harder. Gandalf would refuse. Boromir would try to seize the opportunity, but the Fellowship isn't that stupid. Aragorn wouldn't want it. They wouldn't give it to either Gimli or Legolas--if one got it the other would quit, or something. Merry and Pippin simply wouldn't be able to deal with it, so...I guess it still goes to Sam!

So, Sam would get it either way. ^_^

But I agree, I think that Frodo and Sam as a unit were the only people who could have destroyed the Ring.

~*~Orual~*~

Tolkien states that Hobbits are related to Men in "Concerning Hobbits", in the introduction to LOTR.

My Speculations: (is that better?)

If Frodo had died when he and Sam were in Mordor, the Ring would naturally go to Sam. If he had died when the Fellowship was together, I don't think Aragorn would have wanted it for the same reason as Gandalf. They actually might have given up.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

Speculation is fine, so long as it is clearly marked as such. Through carelessness you guys convinced Sleeping Beauty that it was fact.

We could talk about this specific instance until we're blue in the face, but what really matters is people need to learn to be more careful about such things. It's irresponsible to say things as if they are fact when there is nothing to support it; and it's weakmindedness to accept such statements without consideration.

Am I being mean and insulting? Yes, I am. Think people.

Mhoram - OK, I see what you were driving at; the only reason I'd put the first note was it seemed like you were issuing a blanket ban on speculation. Actually Birdland was very clear in her starting of the idea that she was speculating:

It is the opinion of many (myself included) that Hobbits were created specifically by Eru Ilúvatar, in order to have one Race who could resist the lure of Sauron's Ring.

But memory tends to get a little swamped when reading lots of posts (including mine, obviously [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Maybe we should have big SPECULATION sign the way people put SPOILER before things sometimes.

Burrahobbit, aren't you being a little harsh?

The reason that it isn't ok to speculate about this particular thing is that while there may be nothing to refute it there is certainly nothing to support it aside from a wish for hobbits to be especially special.

First of all, there's nothing innately incompatible between the fact (since Tolkien stated it) that hobbits are related to men and the idea that hobbits may have been created to save the world during this particular crisis. Creation doesn't mean that God zapped a lightning bolt at the Shire and hey presto, suddenly hobbits appeared. Just that the ultimate reason for their branching off from the Big People may have had something to do with this. (You could make the same kinds of speculations about the Wild Men, for that matter).

It's true that there's nothing to support it apart from a wish, but this isn't a board on Aristotelian fallacies, it's a board that derives a lot of its steam from speculation. The real old battleaxes of questions - Tom Bombadil, Balrog wings, Eagles flying to Mount Doom - the ones that are so popular they've all been asked 40 million times - last so long because there's no real answer and (in the case of the Eagles and similar kinda-sorta far out questions) sometimes there's no real evidence. I'm not saying that speculation is all that should be done, just that it's a large part of the board and can often make you think more about a subject that may not have struck your interest much previously.

Orual - That is interesting. Sam probably *would* get the Ring, by default in some way, though it's easy to imagine him doing everything in his power to beg off. Everyone except the hobbits would be too afraid to touch it (except Boromir, of course, but Gandalf wouldn't allow that). It's hard to see Merry doing anything if Pippin wasn't allowed to join in, and of course there's no way Pippin is going to be allowed to touch it. Poor Sam, always getting left with the baby like that.

That means it's wrong. Fallacies are frowned upon for a very good reason.

I could come up with any number of other things that would be rather amazing, but with no proof either for or against. I would never think of using these things in an actual argument.

Some examples follow.

The Watcher in the water was placed there by Eru in order to secure the Ring and take it by way of secret passages to the Cracks of Doom to be destroyed.

Galadriel was rather obese.

Trolls live in a secret cave under Bag-end where they plot the overthrow of Sauron, but the entrance to the cave isn't in the Shire, so no hobbits ever see them coming and going.

Bilbo was gay.

I could go on and on, but I think you should get the point by now.

Please, lets stick to things that are supported in at least some way.

[edit]Asking "what if?" is different from making things up.[/edit]

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

Sorry, Burrahobbit, I agree with Kalimac and Bird. Speculation is fair game.

And the origins of hobbits can only be speculation, since Tolkien has given no hints as to what happened before the year 1050 Third Age, which is the first evidence of hobbits in the recorded history of Middle-earth. We all know that it is impossible (even in Middle-earth!) for a people to drop to earth from the skies fully evolved just 2,000 years before the Ring quest. What happened earlier in hobbit history was apparently hidden or forgotten. That, in itself, is suggestive.

Why would this be, and why would Tolkien draw attention to the fact that earlier history was hidden, unless it had some significance in his mind? Again, we can speculate what that significance might be. There is one intriguing allusion in the book that Gandalf may know more about hobbit origins, but no more is said on this. Again, why would a maia know more about hobbit origins han anyone else, unless there is more behind those origins than would normally be the case?

There are other interesting hints. In all of hobbit history, we are given only one instance of recorded murder, that of Smeagol and Deagol. We have no instances of hobbits conquering or attacking other peoples. And before the Ring quest, I believe there was only one example of hobbits sending archers to fight in the King's war. This group incidently disappeared without a trace.

All this is very different from the history of Elves or big folk. And it prompts one to ask why. Hobbits are certainly prone to 'small evils', e.g., coveting each other's property, minor theft and deception, etc., but the big sins of murder, conquest and unbridled ambition just don't seem to be there.

Bird suggests one possible reason for this unique history. And what I know about Tolkien and his personal beliefs suggests to me she may be right.

If not, Burrahobbit, can you think of another good reason to explain the uniqueness of this people, and their history, or rather lack of it? I guess you might argue that they were too small to conquer anyone else, but they certainly could have taken weapons to each other, either individually or in groups. The big folk did plenty of that. And still there's the puzzling fact that the hobbits drop out of 'nowhere' just 2,000 years before the Ring quest.

I think it would be hard to deny that these anomalies exist. I would certainly not classify them as 'fallacies' as you suggest in your last post. If you think Bird is off base, how would you explain these anomalies of hobbit history?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

I could say that. I could also say that hobbits were placed ad hoc into the legendarium, following their creation as part of a children's story. They don't fit exactly because they were made for a different, though similar world. They aren't violent because they were made for a Children's Story.

No, that doesn't make it wrong! That just means we don't know if it's true or not. I believe this is open for speculation. In the Bible, God had a chosen people which He led out of Egypt. Maybe in a similar way, the Hobbits were Eru's chosen people. Of course that's just speculation, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Arwen

speculation that contradicts canon is bad (or wrong) speculation

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mhoram ]

Hobbits as the “chosen race / people”

There is nothing that contradicts the idea of hobbits being a normal (d)evolution of Man just like the Drúedain or the men of Harad and the East.
Also, there is nothing in fact that makes hobbits more “chosen” or special than the other Children of Eru; certainly not in their skills or appearance, and not so in their circumstances, which are not supernatural in any way.

“The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves or Dwarves) – hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk. They are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth. They are made small (little more than half human stature, but dwindling as the years pass) partly to exhibit the pettiness of man, plain unimaginative parochial man – though not with either the smallness or the savageness of Swift, and mostly to show up, in creatures of very small physical power, the amazing and unexpected heroism of ordinary men 'at a pinch'.” (Letter 131)

It is of special importance here to note that when Tolkien speaks of the hobbits being “made” in special ways, he is talking in literary terms. This is also undoubtedly one of the most important argument to consider when refuting the “chosen people” theory.

Hobbits were first created by Tolkien in The Hobbit, long before a magic ring appeared, and all of their well known characteristics (which, of course made them good Ring-bearers) were established already there. Bilbo, however, is clearly noted as a special hobbit, an exception, but he indeed is in a way chosen – by Gandalf, and, as Gandalf hints on, perhaps by a greater force. The fact that he is an exception among his people somewhat makes the idea of the chosen race seem futile. Are Men a chosen people just because Beren cut a Silmaril from Morgoth’s crown? Were Men created for that sole purpose? Did Melian fall in love with Thingol just so that Lúthien could later do their great deeds? Idle and wrong speculations.

Child of the 7th Age wrote, “What happened earlier in hobbit history was apparently hidden or forgotten. That, in itself, is suggestive.” I would not say so. Letter 131 also tells us that “Their origin is unknown (even to themselves) for they escaped the notice of the great, or the civilised peoples with records, and kept none themselves, save vague oral traditions”. The only thing suggestive about this is that they know equally less about their first days as Men and Elves; the difference here being that hobbits definitely never “awoke” like the other two, but evolved from humans (physiognomically, one might think of such races as the Drúedain), and therefore could hardly have a fixed date where they stopped being Men and started being hobbits (or whatever they called themselves at that time).

Also note that while Gollum is able to remember sucking eggs with his grandmother, he apparently does not recognize Bilbo as being of the same race as himself, which makes it highly likely that the hobbits evolved quite much in just the few centuries that separate Gollum’s and Bilbo’s birth. Would that mean that a part of the hobbit folk was “chosen” and the other part only “half-chosen” (but still chosen enough to find the Ring)? Of course not.

Child of the 7th Age further asked: “why would Tolkien draw attention to the fact that earlier history was hidden”. As says Letter 131, it was not hidden in any way, just forgotten like that of Men, who had no written tradition and thus no recollection of very early times either.

“There is one intriguing allusion in the book that Gandalf may know more about hobbit origins […]” Quote greatly appreciated.

Gandalf, being the buddy of Manwe, can be assumed to have some deep knowledge and insight on the ways of the world. He does, however, not once stress the fact that the hobbits themselves are especially chosen; he only shares with us his speculation, based on limited knowledge of the finer details of the Music and the designs of Eru, that the Ring might have come into Bilbo’s hands not wholly coincidentally. For that, there is of course no need at all for Bilbo to be a hobbit, and, as it is given, he was an uncommon hobbit anyway. Also, as far as we can read from what Tolkien wrote, there would not be anything special about the origin/evolution of hobbits anyway. I hold Tolkien’s knowledge here to be greater than that of a fictitious character of his.

“We have no instances of hobbits conquering or attacking other peoples.” Because they had no desire to do so, and hardly the capabilities. The literary importance of that fact ceases after the background of hobbits is established in the first chapters of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, in both of which there was no Ring to resist yet.

burrahobbit gave the important clue, which Tolkien elaborates on in Letter 131: “The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy-story', for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken.” Hobbits are peaceful and in touch with nature because Tolkien wanted, and for the children’s story, needed them to be like that. I doubt Eru had a word in that.

“All this is very different from the history of Elves or big folk. And it prompts one to ask why.” Because The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, in the first chapters of which that history and nature is first given, are not in the same vein as the histories of the Elves and the Big Folk, both of which belong to the Silmarillion myths.

In Letter 31, Tolkien even tells us: “my mind on the 'story' side is really preoccupied with the 'pure' fairy stories or mythologies of the Silmarillion, into which even Mr Baggins got dragged against my original will”.

The hobbit tribes did not drop out of nowhere either, their ancestors simply migrated, and came only therefore first in contact as a folk distinguishable from humans and yet in contact with other people that had written record (the men and perhaps Elves in Eriador); the Éothéod in the Anduin vales do not remember people related to the Shire hobbits, and know the latter only as a rumour of fairy-tale like value. The Elves of Mirkwood, the vague area from which the ancestors of the hobbits came, in turn, do not record hobbits either, which means that in the time they migrated, they were not considered different from Men. Or maybe they were just not their study. Again, there is nothing about their migration which suggests any higher mission, command or position.

Therefore, I would hardly call the history of the hobbits an anomaly, just as much as I would not call the history of the Drúedain an anomaly.

Now, all of this should be plain and hopefully understandable. But what really speaks against the idea of hobbits being especially created by Eru, which would mean, different in origin than Men (which they are not, as I have quoted), is the fact that using Eru as a last resort to explain things is commonly a weak argument.

The only argument one could use for this speculative hypothesis is that Eru would have chosen some people to aid the eventual destruction of the Ring. As I have explained above, this would mean that Tolkien would have had to have given a retroactive reason for the existance of hobbits. I do not see why he should not have been content with the fact that hobbits simply exist for themselves (and his own delightment).

Also it would mean that Tolkien would have had Eru intervening gravely into the affairs of the Third Age both on his own and without the apparent knowledge of the Valar. The Legendarium tells us that Eru did intervene very rarely and only in cataclysmic dimensions. This definitely was not one, more than two thousand years before the Ring would have eventually been destroyed. Added to this, I do not suppose that the Music of the Ainur would extend in such great detail to such a time concerning Men (for hobbits are no other), who are, by definition in the mythology, free from the structure of the Music. Only dealing with Elves, such as Beren, Túrin, and Bilbo had, can entangle mortals in the tighter webs of the Music and of Fate.

A "council of the Valar, summoned it seems by Manwë ("and maybe he called upon Eru for counsel?"), at which it was resolved to send out three emissaries to Middle-earth" (UT, IV, ii) is what Unfinished Tales has to say about a possible intervention of Eru in the affairs of Arda in the Third Age. Would, in that case, the fact that the Valar and the istari still are ignorant of this hypothetical rôle of hobbits as the chosen people not be contradictive?

As much as I like speculation myself, using Eru as the catalyzer of events not fully known (but, as I have shown, known enough to refute unneccessarily contradictive speculations) is definitely not within what I know about Tolkien and his personal beliefs. His personal beliefs hardly play a role at all here anyway, apart from those he had of his Legendarium, on which (for the first time in this thread so far) I have tried to shed some light.

Well, there you have it, from the mouth of Mr. Canon himself: Tolkien considered Frodo the Hobbit to be an instrument of a deity.

And since Frodo didn't just drop out of the sky, nor was born full blown on the half-shell, that means, in my own humble opinion, that even indirectly, the very creation of the sub-race of Hobbits may have been part of Eru's plan as well. After all, you can't have Frodo the Hobbit without Hobbits in general.

Tolkien's "made-up" theology in LoTR and the Silm is messy and contradictory, as are most religions. And in the end it is all based on speculation.

Burrahobbit - Boy, talk about speculation! How would you know? God Almighty let you take a peek at his Holy Palm Pilot or something?

Mho - I fail to see what relevance posting a link to an atheism web site has towards a discussion of Tolkien and his mythology. What are you trying to do: prove Eru is Dead?

Lastly, I am not here to argue about anyone's belief systems (and yes, even atheists have a belief system). My opinion on the subject of Hobbits being specifically created as an instrument of Tolkien's deity is solely my own, based on my own reading of Tolkien's books and my own opinions on the workings of "destiny".

And returning to the original question: No. Nobody could have replaced Frodo as the Ringbearer.

Please continue the "chosen people" discussion here. Feel free to discuss the original topic in here still, of course.

Thanks, Mark! It's been a while since I read Concerning Hobbits, but now that you said that I think I remember it now. Doesn't it always work that way? ^_^

~*~Orual~*~

If the ringbearer died, the ring would simply have passed to another. However, the ringbearer has to be someone honest, brave true and good at heart to bear the rings, but he also has to have good friends around him. Look at frodo- they dont come much straighter than hobbits! But at the end, when he paused at Mount Doom, Sam was there to help him, as he always was to keep him straight. Makes you wonder how good a ring bearer Sam would have made...

I think it depends on where he woud of died

My very first instict is to say that Sam would've made a wonderful anything, Ring-bearer included. But truth be told, I think (as has been said) that it took Sam together with Frodo to really pull it off. Frodo alone would have succumbed to the temptation of the Ring long before he did, and with nobody there to a) snap him out of it or even b) bite his finger off, that would've been the end of it. I think it would've gone equally ill with Sam alone. His heart is pure, but his best attributes make him most suitable for the kind of support that Frodo needed, not necessarily for the task of Ring-bearer. So, in the end the result would've doubtless been the same: the Ring would have either taken control or it would have been taken from him.

Basically, it would've been baaad if Frodo had died. ^_^

~*~Orual~*~

Okay this may be unpopular but if Frodo died I think Sam or possibley Merry or yes even pip may ahve been able to carrythe ring. Not alone but neither could frof without Sam. I think Frodo was the chosen one to carry it but I would not comepletely rule out the chances of one of the other Hobbits taking on the job with help of the other Hobbits. Sam, merry and Pip did more than they thought alone and togather so don't count them out. I do beleive it would be less likely to be successfull but they would try and i beelive only a Hobbit could even attempt it with out being very quickly overcome.