I think fate plays a large part of why Tolkien chose to break the Fellowship. If you think about it, Aragorn's destiny was so vastly different than Frodo's that both could not be achieved on the same quest.
Aragorn was to be the King of Gondor (and Arnor). Clearly his fate rested in Gondor and its people. One might argue that he could have gone and somehow claimed the Kingship before the war was over, and *then* accompanied Frodo to destroy the Ring. This is somewhat unrealistic though, as destroying the Ring was of paramount importance; no time could be wasted in Gondor if it meant the Ring was idle. As proven by the books, Sauron's armies would have crushed Gondor, and quickly, before the attempt to destroy the Ring was even made, if these were done sequentially.
Of course, the opposite argument would be to have Aragorn and company destroy the Ring, *then* go claim the throne of Gondor. This, I argue, is equally unrealistic given the political climate of the time. Even had Aragorn personally destroyed the Ring, he would not have returned to Gondor and have the crown handed to him freely. Take away Sauron and the armies of Mordor, take away the need to unite and lead the nation into war, and you find yourself in no need of a King. Quite frankly, without the threat of Sauron, the folk of Gondor would live quite happily as they are. And despite any of Aragorn's pedigree, the pride of Denethor would simply not allow him to cede his power to an outsider without a great cause.
On the other hand, for Frodo, the struggle with the Ring was, I think, meant to be a highly personal undertaking. Tolkien wanted to show that he had to grow and overcome his burden without the "supervision" of mighty warriors or powerful wizards. To crowd Frodo with all of the other characters would be to take away a lot of the emphasis on Frodo's personal struggle with the Ring. Overcoming the pull of the Ring was not meant to be a group effort; it was the test of one Hobbit's resilience.
|