The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Animalmother · 01-25-2007, 11:05 AM

Gandalf estimated that Saruman commanded ten-thousand Uruk-hai. About 5,000 pounds or 2, 300 kilograms of flesh per day would keep them happy. If only one-tenth of the flesh were human, that's 230 kilograms per day, or about 10 people per day, or 3,650 people per year. to feed to the Uruk-hai. Texas's geographical size and population when fighting the Comanche Indians from AD 1838 through AD 1860s was close to Rohan's. In the 1840s, we were losing about two-hundred Texans per year, killed or kidnapped by the Comanche. These losses meant all out war between Texas and Comanches. Rohan would have reacted the same way if any similar number of its people were taken. Saruman could not have man-flesh from Rohan without provoking all out war with Rohan, which he was trying to avoid in the years before the War of the Ring. Similarly, he was trying to persuade the Dunlendings that he was their friend. That would be difficult to do while feeding Dunlending people to Uruk-hai, even if the people were of low socio-economic status. Saruman needed the loyalty of the Dunlendings, to keep his army balanced -- he could not trust his Uruk-hai to be loyal for loyalty's sake. Also, if the Uruk-hai meat meals were taken from the people of Rohan or from the Dunlendings, the widely travelled Gandalf would certainly have heard of these strange dietary practices at Isengard long before he fell into Saruman's trap on July 10, III 3018. For all these reasons, Saruman's source of man-flesh must have been remote rather than local, and the East was the obvious place for an experienced Easterling expert to look for it.

I am not implying Gandalf was lying at the Council of Elrond. I am stating it flat-out. Gandalf was a master of deception, one who delighted in secrets and in trickery. In the Hobbit, he allows his Dwarvish companions to be tormented all night by trolls, pitching his voice to provoke the trolls into foolish quarrels with each other until sunrise. He probably could have intervened sooner, but he was enjoying destroying the trolls in a most economical manner. Gandalf suspected Bilbo and Frodo's ring was the One Ring for seventeen years before he finally told Frodo the truth about it, in April III 3018. He also kept the secret of the One Ring from Saruman, who was the Head of the White Council. The Gandalf we see is Gandalf as seen and recorded by the Hobbits in their history. He's not necessarily the real Gandalf, just as Plato's Socrates is not necessarily the real Socrates. It's clear that not everyone on Middle Earth trusts Gandalf. He's close only to the High Elves, the Dunedain remnant, the Dwarves, and some rich Hobbits.

Gandalf and Saruman had known one another in their human forms for two-thousand years. Saruman has plenty of time to devise his speech for Gandalf. He was a master of rhetoric. I do not believe Saruman would have made any mistakes in delivering it. But in Gandalf's account, Saruman's speech begins badly, with sarcasm and insults. Next, Saruman proposes an alliance with Sauron, the argument least likely to appeal to Gandalf. Next Saruman appeals to Gandalf to reveal the hiding place of the One Ring. This is not a plausible sequence. Finally, if Saruman thought there were no hope of persuading Gandalf, or if Saruman had gone completely over to Sauron's side, why did Saruman not torture Gandalf immediately for the truth about the Ring? Saruman had Gandalf as guest of Orthanc for sixty-eight days. My conclusion is that Saruman was not really a loyal a vassal of Sauron. Saruman was truly "Saruman of Many Colours," meaning he was a chameleon who would adapt his tactics to circumstances. Just as the Catholic church condemned Machiavelli's teaching, Gandalf condemned Saruman's. For Gandalf, there was no compromising with evil, not even to the extent of using its weapons. The Valar did not send the Istari to Middle Earth to compromise with evil, even for good ends.

Gandalf knew the seductive power of the Machiavellian argument. Gandalf himself was tempted by the Ring. Gandalf was so fearful of the power of the Machiavellian argument, he did not want it repeated, even second-hand, in the company of weaker people, such as Boromir, Gloin, and who-knows-who-else at the Council of Elrond.
.

01-25-2007, 11:05 AM	#15
Animalmother Pile O'Bones Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14	Of Uruk-hai and Lying Wizards Gandalf estimated that Saruman commanded ten-thousand Uruk-hai. About 5,000 pounds or 2, 300 kilograms of flesh per day would keep them happy. If only one-tenth of the flesh were human, that's 230 kilograms per day, or about 10 people per day, or 3,650 people per year. to feed to the Uruk-hai. Texas's geographical size and population when fighting the Comanche Indians from AD 1838 through AD 1860s was close to Rohan's. In the 1840s, we were losing about two-hundred Texans per year, killed or kidnapped by the Comanche. These losses meant all out war between Texas and Comanches. Rohan would have reacted the same way if any similar number of its people were taken. Saruman could not have man-flesh from Rohan without provoking all out war with Rohan, which he was trying to avoid in the years before the War of the Ring. Similarly, he was trying to persuade the Dunlendings that he was their friend. That would be difficult to do while feeding Dunlending people to Uruk-hai, even if the people were of low socio-economic status. Saruman needed the loyalty of the Dunlendings, to keep his army balanced -- he could not trust his Uruk-hai to be loyal for loyalty's sake. Also, if the Uruk-hai meat meals were taken from the people of Rohan or from the Dunlendings, the widely travelled Gandalf would certainly have heard of these strange dietary practices at Isengard long before he fell into Saruman's trap on July 10, III 3018. For all these reasons, Saruman's source of man-flesh must have been remote rather than local, and the East was the obvious place for an experienced Easterling expert to look for it. I am not implying Gandalf was lying at the Council of Elrond. I am stating it flat-out. Gandalf was a master of deception, one who delighted in secrets and in trickery. In the Hobbit, he allows his Dwarvish companions to be tormented all night by trolls, pitching his voice to provoke the trolls into foolish quarrels with each other until sunrise. He probably could have intervened sooner, but he was enjoying destroying the trolls in a most economical manner. Gandalf suspected Bilbo and Frodo's ring was the One Ring for seventeen years before he finally told Frodo the truth about it, in April III 3018. He also kept the secret of the One Ring from Saruman, who was the Head of the White Council. The Gandalf we see is Gandalf as seen and recorded by the Hobbits in their history. He's not necessarily the real Gandalf, just as Plato's Socrates is not necessarily the real Socrates. It's clear that not everyone on Middle Earth trusts Gandalf. He's close only to the High Elves, the Dunedain remnant, the Dwarves, and some rich Hobbits. Gandalf and Saruman had known one another in their human forms for two-thousand years. Saruman has plenty of time to devise his speech for Gandalf. He was a master of rhetoric. I do not believe Saruman would have made any mistakes in delivering it. But in Gandalf's account, Saruman's speech begins badly, with sarcasm and insults. Next, Saruman proposes an alliance with Sauron, the argument least likely to appeal to Gandalf. Next Saruman appeals to Gandalf to reveal the hiding place of the One Ring. This is not a plausible sequence. Finally, if Saruman thought there were no hope of persuading Gandalf, or if Saruman had gone completely over to Sauron's side, why did Saruman not torture Gandalf immediately for the truth about the Ring? Saruman had Gandalf as guest of Orthanc for sixty-eight days. My conclusion is that Saruman was not really a loyal a vassal of Sauron. Saruman was truly "Saruman of Many Colours," meaning he was a chameleon who would adapt his tactics to circumstances. Just as the Catholic church condemned Machiavelli's teaching, Gandalf condemned Saruman's. For Gandalf, there was no compromising with evil, not even to the extent of using its weapons. The Valar did not send the Istari to Middle Earth to compromise with evil, even for good ends. Gandalf knew the seductive power of the Machiavellian argument. Gandalf himself was tempted by the Ring. Gandalf was so fearful of the power of the Machiavellian argument, he did not want it repeated, even second-hand, in the company of weaker people, such as Boromir, Gloin, and who-knows-who-else at the Council of Elrond. .