Gandalf, blood of hobbits on his hands?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Might

There you are wrong, since I would not be considering diplomacy with Sauron, but with those supporting him, the Men of Khand and Harad and further into the east.

But I do not believe that all was done that could have been done. Gondor's insecurity of how to handle the southern neighbours and their seeming unwilligness to initiate any true diplomatic talks is what brought the Easterlings and the Southrons closer to Sauron.

Diplomacy on a scale you are referring to is a fairly new development in the history of Man, and therefore is not germane to the era of the War of the Ring (as is passive resistance -- an entirely alien process, to be sure). For instance, diplomacy was not as advanced in medieval Europe, where treaties basically boiled down to Kings marrying off sons and daughters in the hope of not being attacked. More often than not, this sort of intermarriage only caused genetic deficiencies and did not reduce war in the least. In the case of Middle-earth in the 3rd or 4th Age, we see intermarriage as the main interaction between kingdoms; therefore, he that wielded the greatest power in an area (and in Khand and Harad, that would be Sauron), had the greatest influence. There was also the coercive power of the One Ring to consider.

Originally Posted by The Might

First of all, we know they could be reasoned with, we see that after the war when peace is made with the people of the south and the east.

After the fall of Sauron, the orcs fled, but the Easterlings and Haradrim fought on to the last man. These were not reasonable folk. And Aragorn fought many battles further in the East in the 4th Age. Whatever nice things you'd like to say about Aragorn, he was first and foremost an emperor, conquering and subjugating people and extending the power of Gondor over an area further than any king previously. He may have been an enlightened emperor, but he was a conquering emperor nonetheless.

Originally Posted by The Might

Now, the point is, it's a motto standing as a symbol for liberal ideology, for freedom. I see no contradiction between produly displaying it and in the same time looking for better (at least in my opinion) means to reach this freedom for all people. I see no problem in being proud of people that died to achieve something good in the past and trying to find new ways, again perhaps better ones to achieve something good in the present.

I understand completely TM. Perhaps you should be as equally proud of the Hobbits, who fought and died for freedom in the same manner as your ancestors.

Originally Posted by The Might

After all, should we not learn from history? Yes, you make a good point with Chamberlain, I agree upon that, but again looking further back in history, had England taken a more German-friendly position in the 20s and had made more pressure for an ease on reparation payments and had supported Germany's economy more, the whole Hitler episode would never had happened. Actually, England did that partially, and it almost worked. It was mostly just the Wall Stree Crash that nailed it for the Nazis. With the economy a bit stronger it all may have well worked out in the end.

Actually, had the European allies listened to Woodrow Wilson, there might not have been a WWII. But the Treaty of Versailles after WWI was so spiteful and vengeful against the Germans, it almost guaranteed a second war. But, of course, so many millions died in WWI because of senseless German bellicosity under the megalomaniacal rule of Wilhelm and his woodenheaded generals, that I find it difficult to blame the French or English in wishing to punish the Germans.

Originally Posted by The Might

So just saying "Oh, Neville was too nice and this caused all the war" is in my opinion wrong and way too one-sided. Looking back into history more in depth, one realises that had the British (and especially the French) been a bit nicer to Germany all could have probably been avoided.

Neville Chamberlain can best be summed up in a frank appraisal by Winston Churchill: "In the depths of that dusty soul there is nothing but abject surrender."

Chamberlain underestimated or ignored the evil intent of Hitler time and time again. Czechoslovakia had a superb army and a great munitions supplier, Skoda, and were more than capable of battling the Nazis, but Chamberlain handed the country to Hitler without a fight, which also left Poland exposed in the process. Chamberlain's method of appeasement is the worst possible example of diplomacy in the modern era.

Originally Posted by The Might

Moving further, did the Scouring make Hobbits better? And mark the question, it's not did it make it better for the Hobbits, but made them better. I believe not. It took away their inocence, best example is the killing of Wormtongue. The exhausted and tormented Wormtongue kills his evil master and gets three arrows in his body in return from Hobbit archers before Frodo could intervene and stop them from killing him. Great way to end a war.

If you really follow the history of the Hobbits, they were a race doomed to obliteration eventually. The Battle of Bywater marked their high water point in history, and once the dynasty of Telcontar waned, it is certain Hobbitish fortune waned with it. In any case, you are confusing the point at which they lost their naivety. It was Saruman who stole their innocence, not the Hobbits rebelling against despotism and slavery. One might as well have asked Jews in a concentration camp to attempt diplomacy with Nazi guards. A fat lot of good that would have done.

[The Might]

Andsigil,

Ok, now to the alliances in M-e.

I very much disagree. Ever heard of the Ride of Eorl and the Oath of Eorl and Cirion? Any son of Cirion marrying a daughter of Eorl? I doubt it. This was the greatest alliance in western M-e in the Third Age, founded on friendship and support of the other in need and was always respected by both sides. Always.

So why shoulöd we be so sure that an alliance with Khand and Harad would not have been just as powerful, even against the passing of the centuries and the threat of Sauron? Are you suggesting that the Men of the South and East were weaker or greedier or more evil only because of one example in the First Age of them betraying the Elves?

Yes, some of them fought on to the last man in the Battle of the Morannon and some continued to remain hostile after Sauron's fall.

Now, going very much off-topic, I recall several discusions on racism and Tolkien's feeling of a perhaps certain inferiority of these men, as a weaker or less nobler race. He himself came from South Africa, so he knew what racial discrimination was, and often we see that these dark skinned men are depicted as evil, but I doubt it was Tolkien's target to discriminate anyone and I doubt that believed them to be weaker.

To compare this with recent events you probably heard of, some Haradrim were perhaps a bit Hamas-like, but this does not mean that long lasting peace with them was impossible. And same goes for Khand.

I personally feel that by working together all the Men could defeat Sauron. And yes, as said in the previous long post I acknowledge that eventually violence would be necessary since neither Sauron nor his minions, Orcs and Trolls (althought debateble), had a true conscience. So it would have in the end came to a fight, but with the other Men on the side of good and avoiding a war to the extent of the War of the Ring.


Morthoron,

Firstly, look to the above example of Rohan and Gondor to see a very modern alliance. And it had precedents.

And another thing - I have just found an example speaking against your idea of medieval alliances in Middle-earth.

We have the year 1250 of the Third Age. Gondor is pretty strong, but so is the Kingdom of Rhovanion, the predecessors of the Eotheod. What would make sense? That a Gondorian prince marries a Rhovanion princess. And it happens, but not how you say.

Valacar, son of Romendacil II is sent as an ambassador to Rhovanion were he falls in love with Vidugavia's daughter Vidumavi. Firstly, mark the word love, something you almost never found in medieval marriages, and when Tolkien says love he means it. Secondly, Romendacil II was at first against the marriage. By your logic he should have been really glad, but he was actually concerned with what effects the marriage may have, realising that many people of Gondor may not like her as of non-Numenorean descent. But as he did not want to offent the Northmen he agreed in the end.

So as we see, in M-e exactly the opposite was true - marriages did happen between kingdoms, but because of love not because anyone wanted to strengthen relationships. If alliances happened, then based on honour and truth, as with Rohan and Gondor.


As for the Easterlings, I already stated my opinion of an alliance with them above.

Furthermore, I am not sure if you do understand me. I am not saying I am not proud of the Hobbits ready to give their lives for this cause, of course their courage and bravery is something to be proud of, but not necessary worth emulating. Why not consider some better way of getting out of that sticky situation?


Ok, now I really am getting started. German bellicosity starting WWI? You sound just like Clemenceau, so one-sided and without any deeper thinking.

Now, I'll give you this - a lot of historians believed Germany to be the sole country with guilt for WWI, but things changed and most historians agree that it was a complex mixture of motives on ALL sides that led to the war starting so easily.

Now, I first wanted to sum all my ideas on my own, but in my research I found that the Wikipedia articles already sums it up fairly well. I know it's lazy of me to just copy paste, but still I wish you a pleasant read. I have btw highlightened some of the parts I feel show clearly how much guilt other states had.

On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student, shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in Sarajevo. Princip was a member of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria-Hungary. The assassination in Sarajevo set into motion a series of fast-moving events that eventually escalated into full-scale war.[7] Austria-Hungary demanded action by Serbia to punish those responsible and, when Austria-Hungary deemed Serbia had not complied, declared war. Major European powers were at war within weeks because of overlapping agreements for collective defense and the complex nature of international alliances.

Arms race

The German industrial base had, by 1914, overtaken that of Britain, though Germany did not have the commercial advantages of a large empire. In the years running up to the war a race to possess the strongest navy arose between Britain and Germany, each country building large numbers of dreadnoughts. The naval race between Britain and Germany was intensified by the 1906 launch of HMS Dreadnought, a revolutionary craft whose size and power rendered previous battleships obsolete. Britain also maintained a large naval lead in other areas particularly over Germany and Italy.
David Stevenson described the arms race as "a self-reinforcing cycle of heightened military preparedness."[8] David Herrmann viewed the shipbuilding rivalry as part of a general movement in the direction of war.[9] The revisionist Niall Ferguson, however, argued Britain's ability to maintain an overall lead signified this was not a factor in the oncoming conflict.[10]
The cost of the arms race was felt in both Britain and Germany. The total arms spending by the six Great Powers (Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Italy) increased by 50% between 1908 and 1913.[11]

Plans, distrust, and mobilization

Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the mobilization plans of Germany, France and Russia automatically escalated the conflict. Due to the complicated logistics required to activate, move, and supply millions of troops, each nation's mobilization plans were worked out well in advance, creating a situation where mobilization almost required the country to immediately go on the attack. In particular, historian Fritz Fischer emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of the Schlieffen Plan, which outlined a two-front strategy. Fighting on two fronts meant Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly before taking on the other. It called for a strong right flank attack, to seize Belgium and cripple the French army by pre-empting its mobilization. After the attack, the German army would rush east by railroad and quickly destroy the slowly mobilizing Russian forces.[12]
France's Plan XVII envisioned a quick thrust into the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s industrial heartland, which would in theory cripple Germany's ability to wage a modern war.
Russia's Plan 19 foresaw a concurrent mobilization of its armies against Austria-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottomans, while Plan 19 Revised saw Austria-Hungary as the main target, reducing the initial commitment of troops against East Prussia.[13][14]
All three plans created an atmosphere in which speed was thought to be one of the determining factors for victory. Elaborate timetables were prepared; once mobilization had begun, there was little possibility of turning back. Diplomatic delays and poor communications exacerbated the problems.
Also, the plans of France, Germany and Russia were all biased toward the offensive, in clear conflict with the improvements of defensive firepower and entrenchment.[15][16][17][18]

Militarism and autocracy

US President Woodrow Wilson and others blamed the war on militarism.[19] Some argued that aristocrats and military élites had too much power in countries such as Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary.[20] War was thus a consequence of their desire for military power and disdain for democracy. This theme figured prominently in anti-German propaganda.[21][22] When the German effort was failing in 1918, calls grew for the abdication of rulers such as Kaiser Wilhelm II[23], as well as an end to aristocracy and militarism in general. This platform provided some justification for the American entry into the war when the Russian Empire surrendered in 1917.[24]
The Allies consisted of Great Britain and France, both democracies, fighting the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. Russia, one of the Allied Powers, was an empire until 1917, but it was opposed to the subjugation of Slavic peoples by Austro-Hungary. Against this backdrop, the view of the war as one of democracy versus dictatorship initially had some validity, but lost credibility as the conflict continued.
Wilson hoped the League of Nations and disarmament would secure a lasting peace. Borrowing a thesis from H. G. Wells, he described the war as a "war to end all war". He was willing to side with France and the Britain to this end, despite their own militarism.
Fritz Fischer famously[25] put most of the blame on Germany's aristocratic leaders. He argued that the German leaders thought they were losing power and time was running out. The German social democratic party had won several elections, increasing their voting share and had by 1912 become the most represented party in Germany. While the elected institutions had little power compared with the Kaiser it was feared that some form of political revolution was imminent. Russia was in midst of a large scale military build-up and reform which was to be completed in 1916-17. A war would unite Germany and defeat Russia before this. In his later works Fischer went further and argued[26] that Germany had planned the war in 1912.
Historian Samuel R. Williamson has emphasized the role of Austria-Hungary. Convinced that Serbian nationalism and Russian Balkan ambitions were disintegrating a monarchy comprising eleven different nationalities, Austria-Hungary hoped for a limited war against Serbia and that the strong German support would force Russia to keep out of the war and weaken its Balkan prestige.[27]

Balance of power

One of the goals of the foreign policies of the Great Powers in the pre-war years was to maintain the 'Balance of Power' in Europe. This evolved into an elaborate network of secret and public alliances and agreements. For example, after the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), Britain seemed to favour a strong Germany, as it helped to balance its traditional enemy, France. After Germany began its naval construction plans to rival that of Britain, this stance shifted. France, looking for an ally to balance the threat created by Germany, found it in Russia. Austria-Hungary, facing a threat from Russia, sought support from Germany.
When World War I broke out, these treaties only partially determined who entered the war on which side. Britain had no treaties with France or Russia, but entered the war on their side. Italy had a treaty with both Austria-Hungary and Germany, yet did not enter the war with them; Italy later sided with the Allies. Perhaps the most significant treaty of all was the initially defensive pact between Germany and Austria-Hungary, which Germany in 1909 extended by declaring that Germany was bound to stand with Austria-Hungary even if it had started the war.[28]

Economic imperialism

Vladimir Lenin asserted that imperialism was responsible for the war. He drew upon the economic theories of Karl Marx and English economist John A. Hobson, who predicted that unlimited competition for expanding markets would lead to a global conflict.[29] Lenin and others pointed out that the dominant economic position of Great Britain was threatened by the rapid rise of German industry; However, Germany did not have the commercial advantages of a major empire, and was therefore inevitably going to fight Britain for more economic space for German capital. This argument was popular in the wake of the war and assisted in the rise of Communism. Lenin argued that the banking interests of various capitalist-imperialist powers orchestrated the war.[30]

Trade barriers

Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State under Franklin Roosevelt, believed that trade barriers were the root cause of both World War I and World War II. In 1944, he helped design the Bretton Woods Agreements to reduce trade barriers and eliminate what he saw as the cause of the conflicts.[31][32]

Ethnic and political rivalries

A Balkan war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was considered inevitable, as Austria-Hungary’s influence waned and the Pan-Slavic movement grew. The rise of ethnic nationalism coincided with the growth of Serbia, where anti-Austrian sentiment was perhaps most fervent. Austria-Hungary had occupied the former Ottoman province of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had a large Serb population, in 1878. It was formally annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908. Increasing nationalist sentiment also coincided with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Russia supported the Pan-Slavic movement, motivated by ethnic and religious loyalties and a rivalry with Austria dating back to the Crimean War. Recent events such as the failed Russian-Austrian treaty and a century-old dream of a warm water port also motivated St. Petersburg.[33]
Myriad other geopolitical motivations existed elsewhere as well, for example France's loss of Alsace and Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War helped create a sentiment of irredentist revanchism in that country. France eventually allied itself with Russia, creating the likelihood of a two-front war for Germany.

Ok, I know, huge quote, but a good read I hope. Also, I hope you realise that all the secret alliances, ethnic tensions, arms races, ultraconservative elites all played a part in the war starting.

So don't be so hasty to say that it was clear that the French and the British had all the right to punish the Germans as they did. It's this kind of immoral and somewhat even evil and aggresive policies that make our world a worse place to live in for all of us.
Instead of trying to support Germany, let's just punish them to the extent that they will starve and die and never again attack us. Or will maybe those conditions make them become even more extremist? (nobody thought about that question)


On to Neville Chamberlain. I am well aware that his decision was wrongly made at that point in time, indeed had Great Britain acted when the Sudeten Crisis started they would have prevented Germany from taking over Czechoslovakia.

Same goes for France when Germany militarized the Ruhr in 1936. Why did they not intervene? They approx. 100,000 Germany would have been hopelessly overrun by French and Hitler would have lost a lot of the power he had.

Yes, good questions. And maybe violence would have been good there. But why not look deeper into history and consider other events where violence did nothing but to push the Germans closer to Hitler - say the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923?

And as said before, a peaceful, friendly approach would have surely prevented a Nazi take-over had it not been for the Wall Street Crash. The Young Plan and the Dawes Plan both helping Germany economically cope with reparations payments, the Locarno Treaty in 1925 and Germany's adderation to the League of Nations in 1926 all showed that working together was possible and desirable. But all these events were unfortunately only possible with the background of economic growth in the 1920s. With the Wall Street Crash everything changed, all states turned to isolationism instead of communication with other states, and it is here that I see the bigger mistake.

Not Chamberlain's failure to deal with Hitler should be brought to all people's attention, the poor man is but a scapegoat. It is the failure of all the allied powers - France, Britain, USA - to continue to support weak Germany and to communicate with its leaders that was really the big mistake. Suddently all only cared about inner policy and dealing with rising economic problems, a big mistake if you ask me. Had the states continued to work together for their common good, then all would have been averted, the rise in Nazi popularity, Hitler's rise to power, WWII.

To be so superficial and not take that into account, but just complain about Chamberlain not kicking Hitler's *** is easy, he's the one you have to blame. But let's be honest and admit that he was, like Germany at the start of WWI, not the only one making a mistake.

So, as with the War of the Ring, same goes for WWII, perhaps violence was in order at that time, but looking back over the events prior to that we realise in both cases that treating your neighbours better and putting more effort into international relations is for the best.


I personally feel that the Hobbits would have had a better chance of surviving in the Fourth Age by staying peaceful and keeping to their ways. Trying to emulate the behavior of men, such as Gondorians would only bring them destruction. They would too be subject to greed, power hungry leaders would arise from their ranks and maybe try to conquer Bree for example, leading to more Hobbit deaths.

Instead, why not let them be as they always had been, separated from the rest of the world, as Aragorn btw intended as it was forbidded for outsiders to enter the Shire I believe, and let them keep their special position within M-e. And if something bad happened, if outsiders did threaten them once the House of Telcontar was done ruling? Well, then they had to simply disappear, move on, hide. Somehow, I do not feel that fighting back would have been a better option for them in that case. I rather see them surviving by fleeing than fighting in the Fourth Age.

And another idea, as you will see below, I doubt Hobbits could be changed and made to grow up, it was not their nature to be like Men.


Pitchwife,

That is a great thought, I must admit. Hobbits had already fought off invaders and somehow the Scouring of the Shire may not have had that bad of an effect in the end after all as I think about it.

Think about it, Hobbits fought of Orcs and fought against the forces of Angmar, but within a short time span they all but forgot about this and returned to their peaceful, natural way of life.
So why should we not believe that the same happened after the Scouring of the Shire?
Maybe in a few centuries of peaceful rule by the Telcontar they again returned to a peaceful way of life, forgetting the need to defend themselves against outsiders. This would in my opinion most surely happen.

So, firstly, did the Scouring then even make sense? If the Hobbits would anyway perhaps return to a peaceful way of life did it make sense for Gandalf to first let them fight off the invaders? The deaths of the 19 Hobbits would then perhaps be worthless. The battle would be forgotten, same goes for the Roll with the names of all those who participated.
So why let them fight the battle in the first place?

A very intriguing question indeed, I look forward to replies to it.


Bah, another huge post, but I'll sum it up like this - at least the part that is of interest to the topic at hand - Hobbits were just that way, innocent, natural, unspoiled. And neither Orcs nor forces of Angmar seem to have taken that away from them. So why would Saruman and ruffians manage it? Maybe they were meant to stay that way, meant to perhaps unfortunately disappear in the Fourth Age. So if this was the case, why the battle? 19 lives for nothing?

I have to take a break now, my fingers hurt a bit already.

[Andsigil]

TM,

As for Tolkien's depiction of the alliance between Rohan and Gondor lasting, they were like people in a way which the people of Khand and Harad were not like them. Besides, it was a plot device.

As I said before, history is on my side in this. Even the countries of Europe can't go more than half a century without changing sides. On top of that, Sauron is immortal and has, literally, all the time on the (Middle) Earth to subvert allies.

[The Might]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

TM,

As for Tolkien's depiction of the alliance between Rohan and Gondor lasting, they were like people in a way which the people of Khand and Harad were not like them.

And history on your side? Maybe our recent history of the 19th and 20th century. But our history is not M-e's history. Don't be so sure that men aren't capable of sustaining an alliance for a long period of time, especially if it was based on such positive values.

EDIT: as I said, violence would be the last means eventually, I said that above. If Sauron's minions had no conscience and could not be reasoned with, which is debatable, nothing else could be done about it. And this I agree with, it was a point made by Morthoron I believe that only an enemy with conscience can be persuaded without fighting, a valid point which I accept. So Sauron would also in my opinion NOT have all the time in M-e.

[Andsigil]

And history on your side? Maybe our recent history of the 19th and 20th century. But our history is not M-e's history. Don't be so sure that men aren't capable of sustaining an alliance for a long period of time, especially if it was based on such positive values.

EDIT: as I said, violence would be the last means eventually, I said that above. If Sauron's minions had no conscience and could not be reasoned with, which is debatable, nothing else could be done about it. And this I agree with, it was a point made by Morthoron I believe that only an enemy with conscience can be persuaded without fighting, a valid point which I accept. So Sauron would also in my opinion NOT have all the time in M-e.

It's more than just our recent history. Show me how many alliances in the last 4000 years have lasted more than, say, two centuries. Gondor and Rohan were very much the exception, and not the rule.

[The Might]

So then, tell me, in what way are the Haradrim or the Variags different? Incapable of making lasting alliances? Why, is it in their blood, in their genes, is there anything about them that makes them incapable to act like the Rohirrim and the Gondorians?

Sorry for my indeed blunt response, but when I see no proof at all for your speculation of them being different I speculate myself.

And as I said, stop putting an equal sign between M-e and our world. Yes, Tolkien said something about us being in the Seventh Age and some British seaman having ended up in Aman and having talked to Pengolodh and other Elves. But let's be serious, Arda is not the Earth, the histories are different, we are talking about a fantasy world. And so why should Gondor and Rohan be an exception? Just because it happened to work out properly, what about alliances between Elves and Men in the First Age. They all worked out, except the one with the Easterlings unfortunately. Same goes for those between Elves, except for the Children of Feanor.

Why is it so difficult to accept that maybe in M-e alliances between good people turned out right and could stay that way. Only because in our world that was not the case? Doesn't Tolkien maybe want to teach us a lesson here, that alliances for good are possible and desirable and can last? Or is he pointing out that M-e is just as common and plain as our world?

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by The Might

So then, tell me, in what way are the Haradrim or the Variags different? Incapable of making lasting alliances? Why, is it in their blood, in their genes, is there anything about them that makes them incapable to act like the Rohirrim and the Gondorians?

Culture, for starters. They share nothing in common culturally. Certainly, alliances can be made between total opposites, but they rarely have staying power.

Sorry for my indeed blunt response, but when I see no proof at all for your speculation of them being different I speculate myself.

And your speculation is absurd. Good God, what are they teaching young people in schools these days? "Go for the racist label as soon as possible in any debate!" Ridiculous. Contemptible.

And as I said, stop putting an equal sign between M-e and our world. Yes, Tolkien said something about us being in the Seventh Age and some British seaman having ended up in Aman and having talked to Pengolodh and other Elves. But let's be serious, Arda is not the Earth, the histories are different, we are talking about a fantasy world. And so why should Gondor and Rohan be an exception? Just because it happened to work out properly, what about alliances between Elves and Men in the First Age. They all worked out, except the one with the Easterlings unfortunately. Same goes for those between Elves, except for the Children of Feanor.

Why is it so difficult to accept that maybe in M-e alliances between good people turned out right and could stay that way. Only because in our world that was not the case? Doesn't Tolkien maybe want to teach us a lesson here, that alliances for good are possible and desirable and can last? Or is he pointing out that M-e is just as common and plain as our world?

You're actually the one putting equal signs between this world (the current, modern one) and ME, with your call for alliances, dialogue, and understanding. As Morthoron already pointed out, alliances like you speak of are a recent invention.

Tolkien was a student of history, languages, and mythology. It's entirely fair to take this world's history and mythology as his base, and then assume he changed things from there. Therefore, things like human emotions and rationale maintain a consistency with this world and we don't find superfluous situations like a Khand-Gondor alliance, beautiful in its contrived and 21st century multiculturalism, in opposition of Sauron, forever keeping him at bay (as if...), and formed out of mutual brotherhood and love so as not to offend your sensibilities against what you think is jingoism.