Who do you reckon is the braver race in general, men or elves?
 

Is it braver to fight when you have a short lifespan and you'll die anyway, or is braver to fight when, if you die, you could lose out on countless thousands of years of life? The elves marvelled that the Edain gave so freely of what they had so little of. My copy of Morgoth's Ring was stolen in unfortunate circumstances but doesn't it mention that the Moriquendi don't get reborn when they die. It must take some guts to fight in those circumstances and be separated from your loved ones for practically forever. What do you think?

Well, you might also look at it in this sense: the elves had their stuff (loved ones, countries, personal possessions, etc.) and their numbers didn't grow like men's did. So they might just want to defend all of it personally. Whereas men could be pretty sure that even though it was honourable and their duty to defend their stuff there were so many "other guys" to do the dirty work that it might not be necessary to fight.:D

Besides, who does?

Simple answer as far as my views are concerned: Men.
Why?

You're a Man and you die = you have no idea what will happen
You're an Elf and you die = you return and chill with your grandpa in Aman or can even be reincarnated if you were cool enough

Why the comparison regarding death? Because death is the ultimate fear. It is the unknown behind it that Men fear - fear of losing all they had and never regaining it. Elves do not have such a feeling. As such, the answer is obvious.

That's why I mentioned the Dark Elves. They don't get reincarnated according to Morgoth's Ring and they probably don't know what's going to happen when they die either. So Dark Elves in my opinion are the bravest of the lot.

Even if they are not reincarnated, is it not still the fate of the Dark Elves to endure for as long as Arda endures? Even though they no longer have physical bodies would their spirits/souls/what have you (I can't call the elvish name to mind at the moment) - would these not still be around, in the Halls of Mandos or elsewhere? Is there any thing in Morgoth's Ring or any where else on this?

This is an interesting question. Are men braver because they risk their already short life just by going into battle, or are the elves who risk their infinite life by going into battle. My opinion is that man is braver than an elf. Honor, courage, a selflessness is what makes a great warrior. A man can only live for a short time therefore he will try to win as much honor in battle as possible so that he can be remembered even after his death, whereas an elf would not be as proned to do so seeing as he can live longer if he is simply careful.

Also the uncertainty after death is an excellent point made by the Might, elves know their destiny after death and men do not. This uncertainty is certainly enough to stall death as long as possible, therefore making courageous acts in battle all the more memorable.

The Elves were braver. They were not prone to panic and fearful flight like men, nor did they betray their comrades in battle as men are sometimes wont to do.

Need I mention the betrayel and fall of the great fortress city of Gondolin, it was an elf who betrayed them.

Maeglin was a single individual (and by no means representative of Elves in general); however, I was referring to betrayal in battle by large numbers of men, such as Uldor and his entire host of Easterlings in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. If you are referring to betrayal outside of battle (as Maeglin would be), then there are the cursed army of men of the Dimholt who betrayed Isildur.

I can't recall an entire army of elves being turned in a horde of walking dead due their cowardly betrayal, can you?

Well a lot of the Elves did get turned into the undead, when they refused to go to Mandos when they died. Maybe that isn't cowardice but a lack of faith. Two different things believe it or not. ;)

I'm going to pop in here with a different tangent. I realise this is just the sort of discussion that Downers relish, so I hope this isn't exactly some throwing some water on the debate, more like a new pot, perhaps.

But, it is really quite in keeping with the values suggested in LotR to make even general or broad comparisons between the Middle-earth races? I know we endlessly generalise about elvish ennui and hobbitish resilience and dwarvish stamina, but is it really kosher to compare races? It's not something we accept readily nowadays in the primary world--racial comparison--and to me it has the sense of being quite far from anything Tolkien himself would have considered. Individual members certainly are up for comparison, but entire races?

Given the values suggested in LotR, is it really valuable or feasible to make comparative generalisations about the races? I suppose, too, one could ask if race is precisely the best word here to characterise the elves, hobbits, men, dwarves. Are they not separate species (which in several special circumstances can apparently interbreed?)

Well (unfortunately I'll be a little brief here), I think it's a good point you raise, but I think it's not that inappropriate to find some common "racial traits" (and by the way, as for species or race or whatever word you use, I don't see difference here... it will be playing with words, what we simply mean by it here is Elves, Dwarves, Men... everyone knows what it means). Of course you can't apply some trait on every single individual, but in Middle-Earth, in some things, on the contrary to our world, there really are differences between the races. The Dwarves have something specific about them, as do the Elves, as do the Orcs and even Hobbits compared to the Men - and ALL Dwarves, ALL Elves... etc. seem to have it. Or are supposed to have it, the way the books portray it. Of course, it will be a matter of interesting "post-modern" (in the best sense) interpretation to try to say that in fact, there was nothing like specific racial traits and that the only thing all the Dwarves, all the Elves etc. have in common is that they have some common ancestry, culture etc.

I suspect the answer would depend on whom you asked. An Elf (aside from a really empathetic one like Finrod) would argue 'what difference does a paltry few years make, anyway?' Certainly I can see Thingol saying something like that. Whereas a Man of course would say quite the opposite, along Andreth's lines.

This is a tough, and interesting sort of question.

I'd look at it purely from the perspective of personal sacrifice, and say that it was braver for humans to give up their lives. I don't think the book gives us specific clues as to whether or not one race was braver than the other. I'd say that the act of willingly giving one's life is a bigger deal for a human, from what I understand.

Yes, I suppose you could say there is a genus (Children of Illuvatar) separated into species and subspecies (Men, Elves, Orc, etc.); whereas race would identify specific differentiations within a given species (Easterlings, Numenoreans, Dunlendings, Rohirrim, Haradrim, etc.). But doesn't all that taxonomic biology get a bit tedious, particularly with Tolkien's penchant for vaguery and backpedaling (Orcs -- did they arise from Men or Elves?)?

It was a greater sacrifice for men by giving up their shorter life and plunging into the unknown, so in a sense it was bolder for those who did it, but more elves were willing fight. Let's just say, 50/50.

Well, I'm glad to see my initial response wasn't taken as too off topic and I thank Legate and Morthoron for their replies to my query.

Well, certainly we all know what/who Elmo was referring to, but I was thinking of the old nurture/nature argument that swung back and forth throughout the last century and so on that ground I was thinking that someone like alatar would be very good at some scientific precision in our naming of things, because while it is true that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, sometimes the naming of things determines the direction of thought.

Tolkien's vaguery was exactly what I was thinking of too, how he sets up these very different branches of the children--good point there that they are all called Illuvatar's children, even Aule's dwarves--but then through Frodo and Sam's heroism and Legolas and Gimli's friendship and I suppose Arwen and Aragorn's love goes to some effort to counter the separatism or isolation of the races. These cross racial highlights are what made me wonder if, ultimately, it would be counterproductive to make comparisons across the races.

But to get back closer to the topic, does Arwen's choice tell us anything about the difference between elven and human willingness to sacrifice one's life? After all, the Appendix suggests that it was not until Aragorn's death that Arwen came really to understand what this gift was all about. So, were any other elves really able to comprehend death as humans understood it? And if not, then bravery might not be something to apply to them.

Well, enough rambling.

It seems to me that Arwen led a rather sheltered life (in the safety of Imladris and Lothlorien), and therefore really did not comprehend death as her father, Elrond, would (having seen millenia of war with close friends and kin dying).

I think it was very brave of Haldir volunteering to lead the regiment of elves to Helm's Deep and certain death.
























Geeze...I'm joking.

I have to side with those who think Men are braver. They know much less about the how the world and the things are and what happens to them after death. They have a short lifespan and if they make it even shorter, they lose something irreplaceable, unlike Elves who are more or less immortal. Also, Men have less (or so it seems to me) natural certainity, serenity and wisdom when it comes to facing a tough place, so they are bigger heroes if they master themselves. Maybe it's just because they're all so young comapared to the Elves - they don't have the calm and confidence hundreds or thousands of years of ups and downs bring.

I wrote this on the Which Middle Earth Race do you most identify with? thread some time ago, and still agree with it.

There is something that occured to me when reading this - you actually now made me stop at the memory of Elves in comparison to Men. It may be somewhat off-topic, or heading that way, but it is still touching the primal matter of the thread: The Elves, because of their longevity (or immortality) have many times the memories of past events and deeds in their personal memory; so their judgement is actually better influenced with personal experience. Whereas Men have only the memory shared and passed down through the generations, and every individual has to learn everything anew (well of course even a newborn Elf has to; however, generally speaking, a large part of the Elven population are people - pardon, Elves - whose knowledge reaches deep into the past). Quotes come to my mind... Elrond on the Council... then somebody (Gandalf? I can't remember now) said that "the Elves were once deceived by Sauron but they won't be deceived again" (I believe that is in response to Frodo's question whether Rivendell is safe). Especially this quote shows exactly what I have in mind: humans may forget easily, and had it not been for the knowledge of history, their failures and what lead to them, they would not know - whereas the Elves know from personal experience and can therefore better discern which choices may lead to which ends. This way, the Elven knowledge is a lot stronger. And if you look at the Elven history, really, the Elves learn from their mistakes and the mistakes do not repeat themselves - because usually there are large numbers among them of those who actually remember the past mistakes from their personal experience. Whereas, if you look at Men, their history is history of ups and downs. Look at the Númenoreans, for example. Look at the story of the Ring itself - a better example could not have been made. Sauron returned for the second time just because Isildur did not have the experience the Elves had. And even in the late Third Age, there were still Men, like Boromir, who had to learn their own way about the Ring - and with fatal ends!

This all is to say more about the uncertainty the Men face - they have too little to guide their lives. In cases like this, they have to rely only on the memories passed down to them. So in this way, they would be also braver - to simply rely on something without having the personal experience and "real", personal verification ("what if the memories passed down to me from my forefathers are not true?").

So yes, in this way I would see them as braver - in general.

But then, sometimes, ignorance is bliss. Eisenhower specified green troops for the first wave at Normandy, precisely because, unlike veterans, they wouldn't know, personally, what they were hurling themselves against.

I don't think the comparison is well chosen WCH...

Besides this, look at Eru's gift to the two races. While the Elves are indeed immortal and are forced to wait what may seem like an eternity for the world to end, Men are given the Gift of Death and for this it is said they are envied by both Firstborn and Ainur.

So death is indeed an uncertainty, something humans must all bravely face, but in the end they are rewarded.

Btw, I always thought that when dealing with this topic Tolkien also tried to make the reader feel that death isn't that bad after all and to put it into a new light... kind of a rebirth away from the troubles of the world. But, this is not the topic at hand. :)

I think that, when we are talking about the different races, we are talking about the typical/stereotypical specimen. Populations are bell curves - most individuals are average, in the middle, and on the ends you have the interesting ones. For the elves, these extremes may be Finrod Felagund and Maeglin; one faithful while the other faithless. Most elves were somewhere in between.

So, to me, the average elf is less brave than the average human. And I'm using the word 'less' cautiously, as we all understand what the word means, but when used with bravery, 'less' just seems like the wrong word. The soldier who lives daily in a combat zone is somehow 'less brave' than a soldier who dives on a grenade? :eek: Both are more brave than I ever will be. Anyway...

To begin again, then, in battle, humans may have shown more bravery as they had more to lose. They were more easily slain, had no idea what happened 'next,' and never got to see even an earthly heaven, unlike the elves. And, in regards to dying, wasn't one of the sins of the latter day Númenóreans the fear of death? Remember all of the tomb building and embalming and searching for a deathless land? These people, the best of the best, feared death, and yet the average shmoe still went into battle.

But on the other hand, maybe the humans just didn't understand it all. For example, do children truly understand death? Have they lived long enough to fully comprehend what, if they died, what life they would be missing? How did their interactions with the elves, who had no clue about this (but knew so much about everything else), influence this? Did they tend to believe, even wrongly, that they (the humans) were somewhat like their elvish cousins, and so were going to Mandos at death and so it was no big deal - and if they made a big splash going out, maybe they could win some kudos in Aman.

Or were the elves like some elderly, who, so old and tired of the changed world, looking for something new, and so to rush out into battle, even with the high probability of being slain, at least offered the chance of seeing something new under the sun?

Dunno.

Well, if you're going for aerages then I say men. Look at the Vanyar for example. One war. They were safe and happy in Valinor, while everyone else was dying.

Dead elf walking... Or The New (improved) Elf
 

Hmm, I sense that justifications for the "braver" race are taking a turn towards the topic of mortality...

But instead of just looking at the reincarnating elf, why don't we take a look at the dangers facing an average Free race (Man, Elf, Hobbit, Dwarf, Ent, Wild Man)

Situation 1: Natural disaster; forest fires, volcano eruptions, earth quakes, etc

Situation 2: War; In-fighting between Free races, Goblin/Troll/Balrog/Dragon invasions

Situation 3: Get captured by the Enemy (Morgy in 1st Age, Corrupt Numenorean in 2nd, Sauron/Saruman in 3rd)

Of the three situations, two seemed to offer the prospect of immense torture and humiliation, not least because Middle Earth offered a reflection to this world where we live. War takes away the freedom of individuals; an experience etched in the memories of our very refered J. R. R. Tolkien. If the need for arms drove the courage of folks, then the competition between Men and Elves is not really a matter of debate.

Capture by the Enemy promises even a worse off fate than capture by enemies in skirmishes, as it broods that prospect of being tortured or turned. In some histories, elves were literally bio-engineered into the Master Race by Professor Morgoth. By 3rd age, Saruman had recovered the ancient art of genetic engineering and mated orcs with his men.

If this proved that neither elves nor men were spared the worst of fates, it did indicate that adversity is the mother of courage.

Men are braver.