Aragorn's political skills.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

In the case of Aragon II, he had no standing army to back him in a clientele system and so was in a position Wallenstein was in. He procrastinated in entering the center of power which would have given his opponents the time to unite and gather resources to oppose him. And lastly he decided on a battle that was even riskier than Napoleon's 1812 Russian invasion, Alexander's Indian expedition and Caesar's planned attack on Parthia. In all he went against the teachings of the great three and if he was in the real world, he would have suffered a crushing defeat, an ignominious end and eternal condemnation by scholars of history. But hey, it's Tolkiens fantasy! If he wanted Aragon II to sprout wings and fly, the later would.

Hey, they all would have died anyway if Frodo hadn't succeeded.

[Lyta_Underhill]

All three armies understood that without their respective leaders, they could not have enjoyed what they have acquired. This clientele system was the basis of any great military leader with higher aspirations.

Of course, Aragorn did have the support of the entire Kingdom of Rohan and their legions, as well as the endorsement of the Prince of Dol Amroth, who was to rule as Steward in the stead of Faramir when the latter was injured and in the Houses of Healing. He is also credited with the healing of Faramir, who is beloved of all in Minas Tirith, soldier and civilian alike. I always found it extraordinary that Aragorn, unlike a harsher military leader, did not chastise those soldiers who did not have the heart or strength to fight at the Black Gate, but instead allowed them to save face by turning them to the task of retaking the lands lost in the previous battle. The way I see it, to agree with Neurion above, without Frodo's success, it doesn't matter whether Aragorn is king of Gondor and Arnor or not. But his humanity will still be weighed in the balance, and not be found wanting. He acts in a way that puts humanity above the mere realm of Gondor and in this, reflects Faramir's assertion to Frodo with regard to the Ring, that he would not take it even if Minas Tirith were to fall.

An apt quote of Letter 183 as well, SPM, and there does seem to be a consciousness on Aragorn's part that he must have support; however, that support will not be bought at the price of inhumanity to a single person. It is refreshing to see such scrupulous integrity, and I can understand why it would be astronomically improbable in the "real world." Therefore, I avoid real people and talk to Ents!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Lobelia]

I actually did my Honours thesis in English literature on the subject of King Arthur and why he starts off as a heroic warrior and ends up sitting in Camelot handing out knighthoods. The conclusion I drew from my research was that a mediaeval Christian king was not supposed to go out to battle, because of the fact that the land depended on him to stay alive. Yes, I know, I know, there were mediaeval warrior-kings such as Richard the Lionheart. But face it, he was a lousy king, no matter what the Robin Hood movies tell you. I doubt if he would have been considered a good king even in his own time. Now, Aragorn is a warrior, no question about it, but he has spent most of his life as being something other than a King, even if he does have the right to the throne. My guess is that, in the Fourth Age, he would have been concentrating on running his kingdom and delegated the warrior duties to the likes of Faramir. (If I missed some reference to a battle in the Appendices, sorry!). Yes, Tolkien's work is full of early kings who went off to battle, but look what happened to them - and their kingdoms! Worse still, their heirs nearly always seem to get killed at the same time. And none of them is *the* King.

Another thing: I get the impression that Tolkien's aristocrats earn their respect. They may have been born to rule, but they work for it, keeping the borders safe and protecting their people. I'm thinking of the Rangers and their ilk in particular. Aragorn has certainly earned his kingship by the time he's crowned! He doesn't have to bea politican.

[Lobelia]

I actually did my Honours thesis in English literature on the subject of King Arthur and why he starts off as a heroic warrior and ends up sitting in Camelot handing out knighthoods. The conclusion I drew from my research was that a mediaeval Christian king was not supposed to go out to battle, because of the fact that the land depended on him to stay alive. Yes, I know, I know, there were mediaeval warrior-kings such as Richard the Lionheart. But face it, he was a lousy king, no matter what the Robin Hood movies tell you. I doubt if he would have been considered a good king even in his own time. Now, Aragorn is a warrior, no question about it, but he has spent most of his life as being something other than a King, even if he does have the right to the throne. My guess is that, in the Fourth Age, he would have been concentrating on running his kingdom and delegated the warrior duties to the likes of Faramir. (If I missed some reference to a battle in the Appendices, sorry!). Yes, Tolkien's work is full of early kings who went off to battle, but look what happened to them - and their kingdoms! Worse still, their heirs nearly always seem to get killed at the same time. And none of them is *the* King.

Another thing: I get the impression that Tolkien's aristocrats earn their respect. They may have been born to rule, but they work for it, keeping the borders safe and protecting their people. I'm thinking of the Rangers and their ilk in particular. Aragorn has certainly earned his kingship by the time he's crowned! He doesn't have to be a politician.

[Boromir88]

Going back to an earlier post by SpM, with the quote from the letters about "politics." Perhaps the difference between Aragorn and Denethor is Aragorn isn't corrupted by the politics.

We saw him in Rohan try to disobey Theoden's orders. He had full right to claim Rohan when he claimed Kingship, but he didn't. Which differs from Denethor. Denethor despises anyone who doesn't fight under him. He has become corrupted and obsessed with ruling people, being in charge (similar to Sauron and Saruman allthough not to their extent). He can't see that Gandalf is there to help him. He only thinks Gandalf wants to overthrow him and place Aragorn in his stead. He can't see the fact that he's not a king, he's a steward, he takes care of the throne until the king returns. Aragorn is not corrupted by the power he possesses, and Denethor you might say tries to use power he doesn't have. I wouldn't say "politician" is a bad word to describe Aragorn, he just hasn't become corrupted with the power that most politicians hold.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

He had full right to claim Rohan when he claimed Kingship, but he didn't.

Boromir, I disagree. In the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion of The King of the Golden Hall, we discussed the fact that Rohan was an independent kingdom, allied with Gondor but not subserviant to the Gondorian king. Aragorn made a mistake there, from which he learned a lesson. He had absolutely no claim to any kind of rulership in Rohan. At the end of LotR, both Éomer and Aragorn are kings, renewing their friendship. Though one kingdom is greater and more influential than the other, neither falls under the jurisdiction of the other.

[dwarfguard]

Estelyn is right , to the point: I believe the people were ready for a king and not just stewards.When they learned he was an heir of isildur it just convinced them further.Oh yeah, and saving Minas Tirith didnt hurt either.

[Lalwendë]

When we use the word 'politician' it can unfortunately these days conjour up negative images, but we must remember that not all politicians are bad or unsatisfactory. And in Aragorn I do think we have Tolkien painting a picture of what it takes to be a truly effective and popular politician. There is no democracy in Middle Earth, nation states are ruled by absolute monarchs (even The Shire still nods to an absent king), and as Tolkien stated in his letters, he seemed to prefer this system. But this is a system open to abuse, as I'm sure Tolkien himself would have appreciated, and in Aragorn he showed us a monarch who was also a skilled politician and who had overwhelming popular support. it is an ideal.

Originally Posted by SpM

Rather than being calculated to aid his cause, which would imply an element of political manipulation, he is simply displaying good common sense

Aragorn's actions at not entering Minas Tirith as the all conquering victor are indeed good common sense, but this in itself is at the root of good political sense. He has the bloodline to prove he is the rightful king, and he has just proved himself in battle, but he still needs the popular support if the ideal of an absolute monarch mandated by the people is to happen.

Aragorn's inexperience at the necessary political and diplomatic behaviour was displayed at Edoras, and he rapidly learns, through the tutelage of Gandalf and a quick succession of events, the correct way to approach these matters. I cannot see his actions outside Minas Tirith as anything other than astute political skills of the highest order. Contrasted with his bluster at Meduseld, his behaviour outside his own city is exemplary.

Many factors come together up to the moment of Aragorn's coronation to make him into something of the 'ultimate king'. He has gained the respect and fealty of neighbouring kingdoms, his mythological status is confirmed by Ioreth, and he has the Steward, the former ruler of Gondor, on his side, thus avoiding civil conflict. He has also been lucky that Denethor is not around to stir up trouble, and that he has the best mentor any inexperienced king could wish for.

I do not think Tolkien was against all politicians, only those (and those who seem these days to be prevalent unfortunately) who are in it for the power. Time and again he shows us figures who have been corrupted by the negative side of politics. We have the aggressive rulers in the forms of Sauron and Saruman who seek to empire build. Denethor is the politician who senses his time is up and his desperation causes him to lose the essential power of leadership. There is Grima, the sinister Sir Humphrey figure who craves power and uses the very modern art of manipulation even to the point of his own destruction. And there are even local officials drunk on the power to enforce petty rules as seen in Lotho. All of these come to a sticky end.

So what I see is a message that while politics can easily corrupt leaders, they can also enrich and enable, if the poltical skills being used are for the good of the people, and are coupled with humility and respect. Aragorn is a skilled politician, and he has to be for how else is he to apear such a good king if he does not know how to lead?