Aragorn's assertiveness

[Leaf]

Allow me to start this Book discussion threat with an observation concerning PJ's portrail of Aragorn's character. The main difference between the character from the books and the movies lies in Aragorn's attitude towards his own cause: The claim on the gondorian throne and the restoration of the former kingdom. Movie-Aragorn is ridden with self-doubts about his own capabilities and his (prospective) people. He doesn't want to become king in his own right and therefore chose a life in exil, as a ranger. Book-Aragorn, on the other hand, is confident and strident when it comes to the verbalisation of his heritage and claim.

I suppose PJ wanted to accomplish two things with this alteration:

1. To make Aragorn more sympethetic and relateable to the audiance.

2. To give Aragorn an emotional ark, where he finally learns to accept his own destiny.

I think PJ succeeded with regards to the first goal. At least from my personal experience I get that many people liked this hesitant and humble Aragorn more. Yet it seems to me that the gain of sympathy comes with a big loss. Let me try to explain what I mean by that.

Political sovereignty over a territory does not simply fall from the sky. In actuality it's quite the opposite. It requieres determination and the will to defend a claim to power, verbally and in action. Book-Aragorn embodies this bold and overbearing concept in person. The authoritarian nature of this endeavour is concealed when you make Aragorn into a passive character, who practically has to be bullied (by Elrond and circumstance) into becoming the all-powerful King of Gondor.

It's astonishing to me that PJ somehow managed to romanticise kingship to a greater degree than Tolkien ever did!

At least in the novel it's clear that this man has a mission and the determination to archieve what he desires. Movie-Aragorn simply turns out to be the oh-so-humane and charismatic autocrat who is instituted, not by a clear political agenda, but mostly by fate and public demand. That's, to me at least, a disturbing idea of authority. The discomfort the reader might feel when Book-Aragorn self-righteously declairs his hereditary claims on this and that is a good thing. Peronally I find this character trait to be quiet amusing but appropriate regarding the context.

I don't necessarily think that Tolkien intended to irritate his readers in this way. The main concept of the novels requiered an outdated and exaggerated type of authority figure that is strange to modern thinking. While Book-Aragorn's claims and the according demeanour is portrait as unquestionable good and just, the mark of authority is still there and visible!

What do you think about this? Am I over-analysing this themes or do you think that it's fair to distinguish books and movies in this manner?

These contradicitons between movie and novel brought me to think about this subject a little more. I want to look into this aspect of Aragorn's character deeper and collect, together with your help, passages from a books that substantiate this motif. We could, for example, collect every instance where Aragorn insists on his status, or where he introduces himself to other people as the rightful heir of Isildur. But I think that the oppsite might be more practical. To whom doesn't Aragorn declare his heritage and claims and why?! We could start with analysing Fellowship and work our way up till the Return of the King.

[Zigûr]

Something I think the filmmakers overlooked is the fact that Aragorn actually does have a small character arc in the book, appropriate for a secondary character (which he is).

For instance, after the passing of Boromir, Aragorn expresses self-doubt about his ability as leader: "Since we passed through the Argonath my choices have gone amiss." He does undergo a process, motivated by the loss of Gandalf in Moria, of understanding more seriously what leadership involves and the responsibilities he faces by reclaiming the throne. As he becomes more confident, the narrative becomes more and more distant from his perspective; he becomes a "lofty" character, which is why, for instance, in the Paths of the Dead we see things from Gimli's perspective, as he is the least knowledgeable/confident character in the scene. In "The Departure of Boromir" we see things from Aragorn's perspective because he does not know what is going on (he was looking for Frodo, unlike the film, in which he is massacring Orcs) and is feeling insecure in his leadership of the Company.

Michael Drout gives an interesting lecture touching upon this narrative device, as Professor Tolkien uses it. The lecture can be found on YouTube if I recall correctly.

It comes back, I think, to the fact that the filmmakers turned Aragorn into one of the protagonists, when he's only a supporting character in the book. In the book, ultimately, the protagonists are the four hobbits, but as diminutive folk not wholly inclined to action and derring-do they can't be the only heroes in a Hollywood film, so Aragorn's role is altered. It's one of those things, in my opinion, that shows why the book was unsuitable for the "Hollywood treatment".

[Faramir Jones]

You started a nice thread here, Leaf!

The problem with the portrayal of Aragorn in those films is partly because he is a difficult character for even avid fans who have read LotR thoroughly to get to grips with.

This is a man who is already 88 years old by the time the War of the Ring ends. He becomes King of Gondor and marries Arwen. He then reigns for 122 years, dying at the age of 210. He is 20 when he first meets Arwen, 2690 years his senior, and falls in love with her; but it is when he is 49, after many adventures and experiences, including serving in Rohan and Gondor, that he meets Arwen again, she returns his love, and they become engaged, an engagement that lasts for 39 years.

The reason behind this is that he is the heir of Elendil the Tall, of the line of Elros, of mixed human, elvish, and divine (through Melian the Maia) ancestry, being very long lived. Also, he has been fostered by an Elf, Elrond, as Túrin was by Thingol. The love between him and Arwen can certainly be justified by the love song title 'No Ordinary Love'; because she, as an Elf, would (and does) in order to be his wife need to become mortal, a sacrifice that can be barely imagined.

What I'm saying here is that it is difficult even for fans like ourselves to get to grips with who Aragorn is, who Arwen is, and the nature of their love. Aragorn, while he does express doubt about his ability as leader in the book, has already had many years to deal with a lot of earlier self-doubt.

Even while I accept that because who Aragorn and Arwen are, and their love for each other, is a difficult concept even for avid fans to grasp, and was too much for those involved in the films, it still doesn't explain the nonsense of two scenes. The first is in The Two Towers film, when this happens:

ELROND: (coming into her room) Arwen. (she sits up) It is time. The ships are leaving for Valinor. Go now... before it is too late.

ARWEN: I have made my choice.

ELROND: (standing in front of her) He is not coming back. Why do you linger here when there is no hope?

ARWEN: There is still hope.

ELROND: (walks across the room) If Aragorn survives this war, you will still be parted. If Sauron is defeated and Aragorn made king......and all that you hope for comes true......you will still have to taste the bitterness of mortality.

A vision of Arwen dressed in mourning robes appears. She is standing beside Aragorn, who lies grey and dead wearing his crown and grasping his sword on top of his tomb. Mourners walk behind her.

ELROND VOICEOVER: Whether by the sword or the slow decay of time......Aragorn will die. And there will be no comfort for you......no comfort to ease the pain of his passing. He will come to death......an image of the splendor of the kings of Men......in glory undimmed before the breaking of the world.

The vision changes so that Aragorn is now a stone statue on top of the tomb. Arwen is standing at the end of it, alone and grieving. As morning light comes, she wanders alone through the woods.

ELROND VOICEOVER: But you, my daughter......you will linger on in darkness and in doubt......as nightfall in winter that comes without a star. Here you will dwell......bound to your grief under the fading trees...... until all the world is changed......and the long years of your life are utterly spent.

ELROND: (turning to Arwen) Arwen. (she gasps, she is crying) There is nothing for you here......only death.

In the book, while Elrond was deeply grieved by his daughter's choice of mortality, he accepted the sincerity of her and Aragon's love, not standing in their way. Later, in The Return of the King film, Elrond tells Aragorn that Arwen is dying:

ARAGORN: (bows) My lord Elrond.

ELROND: I come on behalf of one whom I love. Arwen is dying. She will not long survive the evil that now spreads from Mordor. The light of the evenstar is failing. As Sauron’s power grows her strength wanes. Arwen’s life is now tied to the fate of the Ring. The Shadow is upon us Aragorn. The end has come.

No explanation is given for why she is dying, and if it's Sauron's fault why others aren't also dying.

I agree completely with you, Zigûr, that a reason for turning Aragorn into one of the protagonists in the films was that it was either too complicated, too lazy, or both, for the people responsible to give the four hobbits their due.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

No explanation is given for why she is dying, and if it's Sauron's fault why others aren't also dying.

Yes. Not only is it an incredibly lazy piece of storytelling, because it ups the stakes without giving any reason for why it is happening, it's also pointless; the average viewer wouldn't care - they already know that the heroes have to destroy the Ring and stop Sauron from taking over Middle-earth for reasons that have already been clearly established. The addition of this plot point adds nothing whatsoever to the narrative, even to the altered version of Aragorn's character arc invented for the film.

It reminds me of how in the film Pippin has to have a vision of Minas Tirith in the palantír for Gandalf to realise that Sauron is going to strike there next, and he reacts as if he'd never even thought of it as a possibility.

All Gandalf needs to do is say something like "We may have defeated Saruman, but Sauron is sure to strike next against Minas Tirith, the capital city of Gondor, his old enemy." Anyone watching knows that "Gondor" is a country where good Men live; it gets mentioned a lot in the films. There's no need for Pippin to have a silly vision. It would even keep viewers in suspense if they, like Pippin, were largely in the dark until the arrival at the city; if you want a visual cue you can point out how close Mordor is (as the film often does) to emphasise why we're now at Minas Tirith.

I feel like the filmmakers often weren't confident in their ability to express the plot cinematically, which is why they invent these "mystical" shorthands.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

You started a nice thread here, Leaf!

The problem with the portrayal of Aragorn in those films is partly because he is a difficult character for even avid fans who have read LotR thoroughly to get to grips with.

This is a man who is already 88 years old by the time the War of the Ring ends, he becomes King of Gondor and marries Arwen. He then reigns for 122 years, dying at the age of 210. He is 20 when he first meets Arwen, 2690 years his senior, and falls in love with her; but it is when he is 49, after many adventures and experiences, including serving in Rohan and Gondor, that he meets Arwen again, she returns his love, and they become engaged, an engagement that lasts for 39 years.

The reason behind this is that he is the heir of Elendil the Tall, of the line of Elros, of mixed human, elvish, and divine (through Melian the Maia) ancestry, being very long lived. Also, he has been fostered by an Elf, Elrond, as Túrin was by Thingol. The love between him and Arwen can certainly be justified by the love song title 'No Ordinary Love'; because she, as an Elf, would (and does) in order to be his wife need to become mortal, a sacrifice that can be barely imagined.

What I'm saying here is that it is difficult even for fans like ourselves to get to grips with who Aragorn is, who Arwen is, and the nature of their love. Aragorn, while he does express doubt about his ability as leader in the book, has already had many years to deal with a lot of earlier self-doubt.

It's true, Aragorn is a difficult character to get accustomed to. You outlined his vague backstory well enough. I think what it comes down to is this: There's two contradictory concepts within his character. His everyday (sometimes moody) personality and his royal and mythical role.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Something I think the filmmakers overlooked is the fact that Aragorn actually does have a small character arc in the book, appropriate for a secondary character (which he is).

For instance, after the passing of Boromir, Aragorn expresses self-doubt about his ability as leader: "Since we passed through the Argonath my choices have gone amiss." He does undergo a process, motivated by the loss of Gandalf in Moria, of understanding more seriously what leadership involves and the responsibilities he faces by reclaiming the throne. As he becomes more confident, the narrative becomes more and more distant from his perspective; he becomes a "lofty" character, which is why, for instance, in the Paths of the Dead we see things from Gimli's perspective, as he is the least knowledgeable/confident character in the scene. In "The Departure of Boromir" we see things from Aragorn's perspective because he does not know what is going on (he was looking for Frodo, unlike the film, in which he is massacring Orcs) and is feeling insecure in his leadership of the Company.

Michael Drout gives an interesting lecture touching upon this narrative device, as Professor Tolkien uses it. The lecture can be found on YouTube if I recall correctly.

It comes back, I think, to the fact that the filmmakers turned Aragorn into one of the protagonists, when he's only a supporting character in the book. In the book, ultimately, the protagonists are the four hobbits, but as diminutive folk not wholly inclined to action and derring-do they can't be the only heroes in a Hollywood film, so Aragorn's role is altered. It's one of those things, in my opinion, that shows why the book was unsuitable for the "Hollywood treatment".

Yes, that's a good observation. The shifting in perspective most certainly requiered an altered character. A character more suitable for the typical Hollywood-esque protagonist. I find this to be boring and also a little sad. In a way I always liked Book-Aragorn for his determination and occasional boldness. At times he seems to be more of a mythical figure, a visage of kingship in and of itself.
As I said before his fierce assertiveness even has some comedic value to me. I always chuckle when I read those Aragorn passages where he declares his right to rule, own or do something simply because of his ancestors. Like "Oh, that thing over there?! Yep, that's totally mine." "What, I can't act this way? Has anybody told you who I am?"

I suppose it's true, it's good to be the King.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Leaf

I want to look into this aspect of Aragorn's character deeper and collect, together with your help, passages from a books that substantiate this motif. We could, for example, collect every instance where Aragorn insists on his status, or where he introduces himself to other people as the rightful heir of Isildur. But I think that the oppsite might be more practical. To whom doesn't Aragorn declare his heritage and claims and why?! We could start with analysing Fellowship and work our way up till the Return of the King.

That sounds like an interesting project. I may take you up on that.

Originally Posted by Leaf

Book-Aragorn, on the other hand, is confident and strident when it comes to the verbalisation of his heritage and claim.

and

Originally Posted by Leaf

Political sovereignty over a territory does not simply fall from the sky. In actuality it's quite the opposite. It requieres determination and the will to defend a claim to power, verbally and in action. Book-Aragorn embodies this bold and overbearing concept in person.

And

Originally Posted by Leaf

In a way I always liked Book-Aragorn for his determination and occasional boldness. At times he seems to be more of a mythical figure, a visage of kingship in and of itself.
As I said before his fierce assertiveness even has some comedic value to me. I always chuckle when I read those Aragorn passages where he declares his right to rule, own or do something simply because of his ancestors. Like "Oh, that thing over there?! Yep, that's totally mine." "What, I can't act this way? Has anybody told you who I am?"

I don’t agree that Aragorn is strident or overbearing in asserting his claims. In point of fact, he is usually rather humble about it. I agree that Tolkien intended him to be a semi-mythic figure. However, I think Faramir Jones is correct in pointing out that from a practical standpoint Aragorn already had a wealth of experience in life and in leadership by the time he encountered the hobbits at The Prancing Pony. He was accustomed to heavy responsibility and hard choices.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It reminds me of how in the film Pippin has to have a vision of Minas Tirith in the palantír for Gandalf to realise that Sauron is going to strike there next, and he reacts as if he'd never even thought of it as a possibility.
All Gandalf needs to do is say something like "We may have defeated Saruman, but Sauron is sure to strike next against Minas Tirith, the capital city of Gondor, his old enemy." Anyone watching knows that "Gondor" is a country where good Men live; it gets mentioned a lot in the films. There's no need for Pippin to have a silly vision. It would even keep viewers in suspense if they, like Pippin, were largely in the dark until the arrival at the city; if you want a visual cue you can point out how close Mordor is (as the film often does) to emphasise why we're now at Minas Tirith.

Perhaps they have underlying discomfort with the concept of competent leadership…

EDIT: Gah, I put one of my quotes in the wrong place which rather distorted the flow of the post. Corrected now.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I don’t agree that Aragorn is strident or overbearing in asserting his claims. In point of fact, he is usually rather humble about it. I agree that Tolkien intended him to be a semi-mythic figure. However, I think Faramir Jones is correct in pointing out that from a practical standpoint Aragorn already had a wealth of experience in life and in leadership by the time he encountered the hobbits at The Prancing Pony. He was accustomed to heavy responsibility and hard choices.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that book-Aragorn is some kind of zealot, or an aspirating tyrant. He's just as overbearing as the concept of absolute monarchy is in itself! I may have overemphasised Aragorn's assertiveness due to the stark contrasts between the book and the movie.

You are right, there are times when Aragorn restricts himself and his political agenda. He's willing to bow his own claim to the rules of the golden Hall and in turn agrees (reluctantly) to leave his sword (the very symbol of his kingship) in front of the door. His approach to the political situation in Minas Tirtih is restrained as well. Aragorn is willing to wait for the right time, so he doesn't claim the throne as soon as possible.

I think Aragorn views his claims as a mixture of privilege and duty. And he's mature enough to act accordingly.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that book-Aragorn is some kind of zealot, or an aspirating tyrant. He's just as overbearing as the concept of absolute monarchy is in itself!

As a side point, but an important one I think, the Gondorian monarchy (and by association the Arnorian as well) was not an absolute one. Tolkien speaks to this in one of the HOME essays. I will find it and post the relevant contents this evening.

He's willing to bow his own claim to the rules of the golden Hall and in turn agrees (reluctantly) to leave his sword (the very symbol of his kingship) in front of the door.

That was a complex situation. I don't know if Tolkien himself had developed all the ultimate complexities at the time of writing. Rohan existed because of the gift of the Steward who ruled until the King returned. Theoretically, that gift could be revoked by the returned King. Aragorn was put in an awkward situation because he was asked (unknowingly on the part of the askers, it is true) to diminish his status and acknowledge the supremacy of the King of Rohan within the bounds of Rohan. Those bounds, however, could still be considered provisional as they had not been confirmed by the King. Acknowledging the claim of the King of Rohan could diminish the legal standing of the King of Gondor should he decide to revoke the gift of Calenardhon.

While Aragorn acted temperamentally, it may have been for show.

I think Aragorn views his claims as a mixture of privilege and duty. And he's mature enough to act accordingly.

I agree with this.

[Leaf]

I started to reflect on Aragorn's different interactions in Fellowship. If I'm not mistaken there's only one character that, by the end of the book, is not aware of his royal ambitions. That is, Aragorn didn't feel the need to explain his heritage and claim to him. I'm talking about good ol' Barliman Butterbur. He genuinly has no clue about who Aragorn really is.

Besides him everybody is aware of this. Either because Aragorn directly tells them, or they presumedly are already informed on that matter.

[Belegorn]

Aragorn to me built up to his reclamation of the throne.

Originally Posted by Of Aragorn and Arwen

She shall not be the bride of any Man less than the King of Gondor and Arnor.

One of the reasons his last ancestor (Arvedui) to make a claim to the throne was denied it was because he had not proved himself worthy. His cousin Eärnil II was a great captain and won great victories, in fact snatching victory from the maws of defeat because Gondor was just about to he conquered. Aragorn in his life proved himself over and over again. He even became renowned in Gondor as Thorongil. Later during the War of the Ring he proved himself again. These acts of valour and success by Aragorn were the means for his reclamation to me. Had an earlier ancestor proved himself in like manner it would have been done earlier. Denethor, over a thousand years after Arvedui, still saw the line of Isildur as a "a ragged house long bereft of dignity".

There is a gradual coming into his own that appears in the books. Remember from the tavern he did not glitter, to the healing hands being the hands of a King from the Dúnadan woman Ioreth.

Originally Posted by The Mirror of Galadriel

Aragorn took the stone and pinned the brooch upon his breast, and those who saw him wondered; for they had not marked before how tall and kingly he stood.

There is one instance in Rohan where Aragorn asserts his authority in a kingly manner.

Originally Posted by The King of the Golden Hall

It is not clear to me that the will of Théoden son of Thengel, even though he be lord of the Mark, should prevail over the will of Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elendil’s heir of Gondor… I command you not to touch it, nor to permit any other to lay hand on it. In this elvish sheath dwells the Blade that was Broken and has been made again. Telchar first wrought it in the deeps of time. Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil’s sword save Elendil’s heir.

Also there is Éowyn's perception of Aragorn;

Originally Posted by The King of the Golden Hall

she now was suddenly aware of him: tall heir of kings, wise with many winters, greycloaked, hiding a power that yet she felt.

There is also this bit of lore from Gondor from Ioreth about the kings and their healing prowess:

Originally Posted by The Houses of Healing

would that there were kings in Gondor, as there were once upon a time, they say! For it is said in old lore: The hands of the king are the hands of a healer. And so the rightful king could ever be known.

Early in the series when they encountered the Nazgul Aragorn demonstrates this when he sort of breathes some life back into Frodo after he recieved a Morgul-wound in Flight to the Ford. Although none could really cure Frodo of the wound which remained with him even as he left M-E. Aragorn, Glorfindel, and Elrond had taken a look at it and did what they could. He healed Gimli [The Road to Isengard]. Then in Gondor he took care of Faramir, Merry, and Eowen, doing which, word spread like wildfire about the king and how "after war he brought healing" [The Houses of Healing]. Aragorn says, "I have, maybe, the power to heal her body, and to recall her from the dark valley." [The Houses of Healing]

The one other thing I think should bear mentioning is his taking up of the seeing-stone and revealing himself to Sauron. The palantír were in the power of the kings and as king he battled against Sauron, "I am the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough, barely". This is I think another act of Aragorn being kingly by using the Stone which is his by law and right. Below is the scene in which he made use of it.

Originally Posted by The Passing of the Grey Company

"'Where is Aragorn?'
'In a high chamber of the Burg,' said Legolas. 'He has neither rested nor slept, I think. He went thither some hours ago, saying he must take thought, and only his kinsman, Halbarad, went with him;'
<...>
Merry had eyes only for Aragorn, so startling was the change that he saw in him, as if in one night many years had fallen on his head. Grim was his face, grey-hued and weary.
'I am troubled in mind, lord,' he said, standing by the king's horse.
'I have heard strange words, and I see new perils far off. I have laboured long in thought, and now I fear that I must change my purpose.'
<...>
'A struggle grimmer for my part than the battle of the Hornburg,' answered Aragorn. 'I have looked in the Stone of Orthanc, my friends.'"

There is also the instance of Aragorn unfurling the banner of his house (Elendil) just before he and his men engaged in the battle of the Pelennor Fields.

Originally Posted by Battle of the Pelennor Fields

There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count.

Aragorn is seen revealing himself to his enemies, while he does also hide from him. Remember he told the Hobbits how the Enemy is setting traps for him. Yet at Helm's Deep he showed himself and the Enemy did a double take and were kind of taken aback.

[Leaf]

First of all, thanks for your posts. They are a great contribution to this thread.

Faramir Jones

I only have one addition to your insightful post.

You already covered the aspect of biographical revelance. This story is crucial for the understanding of Aragorn's personal development and it's remarkable that Aragorn proved to be so patient. Yet if we look at the text mindful of its origin, we might find another function. If I'm not mistaken, the text the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is supposed to be derived from source material which was originally written by Gondorian scribes and later added to the Red Book. I find it to be interesting that this text is in origin part of the official or national historiography (or myth), so to speak. The parallels to the tale of Beren and Lúthien could function as a source of legitimation for the rule of King Elessar, the Elfstone. The various marriages between elves and men were the very foundation of the western kingdoms ever since Númenor. Therefore, it's only logical to grant this tale such attention in the written history of Gondor.



William Cloud Hicklin

Thanks for the material! Those are decisive and defining moments.

'Elendil!' he cried. 'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!

Gimli and Legolas looked at their companion in amazement, for they had not seen him in this mood before. He seemed to have grown in stature while Éomer had shrunk; and in his living face they caught a brief vision of the power and majesty of the kings of stone. For a moment it seemed to the eyes of Legolas that a white flame flickered on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown.

Éomer stepped back and a look of awe was in his face. He cast down his proud eyes. 'These are indeed strange days,' he muttered. 'Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass.

'Tell me, lord,' he said, 'what brings you here?

Argorn's claim rests on three pillars: His heritage, the Sword and his personal charisma. I think it's fair to say that his call also implies (!) the demand for obedience and maybe even a threat of punishment, and sure enough, it works.

Btw., I love the phrase 'Elendil!' he cried. It's almost like it's his catchphrase.

Those motifs are repeated and reinforced at the quarrel on the Doorstep of Meduseld.

Slowly Aragorn unbuckled his belt and himself set his sword upright against the wall. 'Here I set it,' he said; 'but I command you not to touch it, nor to permit any other to lay hand on it. In this elvish sheath dwells the Blade that was Broken and has been made again. Telchar first wrought it in the deeps of time. Death shall come to any man that draws Elendil's sword save Elendil's heir.'

Here's the epitome of royal sovereignty, the power to issue a death sentence. Polemics aside, could you imagine this quote in the movies? I think that this might have the potential to alienate the audience to a certain degree.

Belegorn

Your post illustrates that Aragorn had extraordinary personal qualities and skills. His knowledge and mental steadfastness accompany his warrior prowess. Aragorn is described as a man worthy of the title King.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Leaf

I think it's fair to say that his call also implies (!) the demand for obedience and maybe even a threat of punishment, and sure enough, it works.

-and-

Here's the epitome of royal sovereignty, the power to issue a death sentence. Polemics aside, could you imagine this quote in the movies? I think that this might have the potential to alienate the audience to a certain degree.

People in general don't spend enough time reflecting on the fact that all forms of government are founded upon the threat of physical force against recalcitrant members.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

People in general don't spend enough time reflecting on the fact that all forms of government are founded upon the threat of physical force against recalcitrant members.

I agree with you. I could have dropped the "royal". Political power and authority is always tied to the threat of physical force against recalcitrant members, or else it wouldn't be "power".

[Boromir88]

Just some quick points not directly tied to Aragorn's assertiveness...

That was a complex situation. I don't know if Tolkien himself had developed all the ultimate complexities at the time of writing. Rohan existed because of the gift of the Steward who ruled until the King returned. Theoretically, that gift could be revoked by the returned King. Aragorn was put in an awkward situation because he was asked (unknowingly on the part of the askers, it is true) to diminish his status and acknowledge the supremacy of the King of Rohan within the bounds of Rohan. Those bounds, however, could still be considered provisional as they had not been confirmed by the King. Acknowledging the claim of the King of Rohan could diminish the legal standing of the King of Gondor should he decide to revoke the gift of Calenardhon.~Kuru

I disagree that Aragorn could have undone the Oath of Cirion and Eorl. Now when Cirion first cedes Calenhardon to Eorl and his people, granting them sovereignty and freedom from Gondor's laws and customs (but bound in an eternal friendship and alliance), he says it shall be so "until the Great King returns." It may sound like Aragorn returning as the "Great King" would be able to override a previous Steward's decision, but it's not quite that simple. As you say it's a complex situation.

Because Eorl and Cirion go to Elendil's tomb and bind it with an oath, that the UT says:

Such an oath had not been heard in Middle-earth since Elendil himself had sworn alliance with Gil-galad King of the Eldar~Cirion and Eorl

Aragorn breaking that oath, would have some terrible consequences. And don't forget, at this time as Hama rightfully points out Aragorn does not sit yet on the throne of Gondor, and even if he did Rohan's sovereignty is sworn by more than just "legally" (a Steward exercising a decision in place until the "Great King" returns) but bound by the oaths of Cirion and Eorl, at a "holy site" in the "keeping of the Valar."

Similarly, as Aragorn, being Isildur's heir is the judge over the King of the Mountain fulfilling his peoples' oath to Isildur. Aragorn as the "Great King" would have the oath of Cirion and Eorl pass on to him. And I don't think it's a matter of just overriding a Steward's ruling. Rohan's sovereignty and freedom from Gondor is sealed by a sworn word, as long as Eorl and his heirs keep their oath that they are allies eternally, "Gondor's enemies are Rohan's enemies" then Aragorn would be expected to keep Cirion's oath.

Which is why you have Gandalf there to mediate, and tell Aragorn as silly as Théoden's demand is, he will have his own way, in his own hall and land.

[Kuruharan]

Apparently, I must spread some reputation around before giving it to Boromir88 again.

Practically, of course, it would have been ridiculous for Aragorn to try to undo Rohan's sovereignty.

However, I still hold my original opinion that Aragorn, as legal matter, could have revoked the Oath because of the clause of the Great King returning.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Similarly, as Aragorn, being Isildur's heir is the judge over the King of the Mountain fulfilling his peoples' oath to Isildur.

I don't see this as being the best parallel because Isildur was sovereign himself (or was he? When exactly was the curse cast?) Cirion was only a servant, exercising power explicitly because of the absence of his master.

Which is why you have Gandalf there to mediate, and tell Aragorn as silly as Théoden's demand is, he will have his own way, in his own hall and land.

As being, literally, a representative of the Valar, perhaps it could be interpreted as Gandalf giving their opinion on the matter.

[Faramir Jones]

You made some interesting remarks here, Kuruharan:

Practically, of course, it would have been ridiculous for Aragorn to try to undo Rohan's sovereignty.

However, I still hold my original opinion that Aragorn, as legal matter, could have revoked the Oath because of the clause of the Great King returning.

Cirion was only a servant, exercising power explicitly because of the absence of his master.

Tolkien was quite explicit that the Ruling Stewards, from Mardil the Faithful to Faramir, were as regents able to exercise all royal powers. Cirion's grant of Calenhardon to Eorl and his people was a lawful use of these powers, even if it was an extraordinary one. Certainly, it appears that no one said, then and later, that he was acting outside his powers.

I'm presuming that Aragorn II, after his crowning as King Elessar, made his first legal act as king a retrospective confirmation of everything done by the previous Ruling Stewards.

If he had done this, the public renewal of the of Oath of Eorl wouldn't have been strictly necessary; but I'm presuming that it was done because of the great symbolic significance of the grant of Calenhardon, the most significant and sweeping act of the Ruling Stewards, and a ceremonial confirmation of the 'old alliance' between Rohan and Gondor, which had just saved the latter.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

I'm presuming that Aragorn II, after his crowning as King Elessar, made his first legal act as king a retrospective confirmation of everything done by the previous Ruling Stewards.

Quite possibly.

If he had done this, the public renewal of the of Oath of Eorl wouldn't have been strictly necessary; but I'm presuming that it was done because of the great symbolic significance of the grant of Calenhardon, the most significant and sweeping act of the Ruling Stewards, and a ceremonial confirmation of the 'old alliance' between Rohan and Gondor, which had just saved the latter.

I believe the fact that there was a public renewal of the Oath strengthens my case that it could (technically) have been revoked.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

You started a nice thread here, Leaf!

The problem with the portrayal of Aragorn in those films is partly because he is a difficult character for even avid fans who have read LotR thoroughly to get to grips with.

This is a man who is already 88 years old by the time the War of the Ring ends, he becomes King of Gondor and marries Arwen. He then reigns for 122 years, dying at the age of 210. He is 20 when he first meets Arwen, 2690 years his senior, and falls in love with her; but it is when he is 49, after many adventures and experiences, including serving in Rohan and Gondor, that he meets Arwen again, she returns his love, and they become engaged, an engagement that lasts for 39 years.

The reason behind this is that he is the heir of Elendil the Tall, of the line of Elros, of mixed human, elvish, and divine (through Melian the Maia) ancestry, being very long lived. Also, he has been fostered by an Elf, Elrond, as Túrin was by Thingol. The love between him and Arwen can certainly be justified by the love song title 'No Ordinary Love'; because she, as an Elf, would (and does) in order to be his wife need to become mortal, a sacrifice that can be barely imagined.

What I'm saying here is that it is difficult even for fans like ourselves to get to grips with who Aragorn is, who Arwen is, and the nature of their love. Aragorn, while he does express doubt about his ability as leader in the book, has already had many years to deal with a lot of earlier self-doubt.

Even while I accept that because who Aragorn and Arwen are, and their love for each other, is a difficult concept even for avid fans to grasp, and was too much for those involved in the films, it still doesn't explain the nonsense of two scenes. The first is in The Two Towers film, when this happens:

I have always found their relationship to be bit of an odd one, and I think even more so after reading your post. Not that it brought new information forth, but sometimes you simply need to see something written in order to appreciate its absurdity/complexity. I also often wondered how Elrond felt about seeing his brother's descendants fair so poorly, and weather it was weird when in the end one of them married his own daughter. Sure they are extremely/unfathomably far removed, but it still seems a bit messed up.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

People in general don't spend enough time reflecting on the fact that all forms of government are founded upon the threat of physical force against recalcitrant members.

Apparently I too, need to spread some rep around.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Just some quick points not directly tied to Aragorn's assertiveness...



I disagree that Aragorn could have undone the Oath of Cirion and Eorl. Now when Cirion first cedes Calenhardon to Eorl and his people, granting them sovereignty and freedom from Gondor's laws and customs (but bound in an eternal friendship and alliance), he says it shall be so "until the Great King returns." It may sound like Aragorn returning as the "Great King" would be able to override a previous Steward's decision, but it's not quite that simple. As you say it's a complex situation.

Because Eorl and Cirion go to Elendil's tomb and bind it with an oath, that the UT says:



Aragorn breaking that oath, would have some terrible consequences. And don't forget, at this time as Hama rightfully points out Aragorn does not sit yet on the throne of Gondor, and even if he did Rohan's sovereignty is sworn by more than just "legally" (a Steward exercising a decision in place until the "Great King" returns) but bound by the oaths of Cirion and Eorl, at a "holy site" in the "keeping of the Valar."

Similarly, as Aragorn, being Isildur's heir is the judge over the King of the Mountain fulfilling his peoples' oath to Isildur. Aragorn as the "Great King" would have the oath of Cirion and Eorl pass on to him. And I don't think it's a matter of just overriding a Steward's ruling. Rohan's sovereignty and freedom from Gondor is sealed by a sworn word, as long as Eorl and his heirs keep their oath that they are allies eternally, "Gondor's enemies are Rohan's enemies" then Aragorn would be expected to keep Cirion's oath.

Which is why you have Gandalf there to mediate, and tell Aragorn as silly as Théoden's demand is, he will have his own way, in his own hall and land.

I really like this discussion, though it would help if we had some knowledge of legal proceedings in Gondor and its law-codes. At the very least it would be nice to know what kind of power non-royal Dúnedain (and non stewards) held within the realm of Gondor. Also what kind of sovereignty does a place like Lossarnach have? Are the people there first and foremost Gondorian?

These are questions that needs answering in order to properly discuss the political options of Aragon.

However I get the impression that he could undo the alliance if he so chose, and that without another power vetoing him. Rohan might not accept restriction of their sovereignty though... Would Aragon have support amongst his vassals, for a conflict with a trusted (and somewhat powerful) allied?