Enemies

[Lalwendë]

Hookbill, good example with Saruman there, and to that I'll also add the treatment and respect offered to the Mouth of Sauron.

But does this suggest that the leaders got respect whereas the foot soldiers did not? That's quite different in many ways to treatment of enemies in real life - my father told me the Italian and German PoWs brought over here to be interned and eventually to work (some worked under my grandfather), were treated very well; the leaders on the other hand faced the Nuremberg Trials and execution.

Or is it to do with race? Enemy Men seem to be well treated, even at times respected (e.g. Aragorn's request that the Dunlendings be properly buried) but enemy Orcs certainly do not.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Or is it to do with race? Enemy Men seem to be well treated, even at times respected (e.g. Aragorn's request that the Dunlendings be properly buried) but enemy Orcs certainly do not.

Still, at least in HoMe, Tolkien considers the possibility that orcs could ask for mercy and have it granted to them. The italics are mine.

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded. Morgoth's Ring, HoMe X, 419

Right now, we have an RPG going on in Rohan whose whole purpose is to consider the possibility that JRRT raised in the above quote concerning orcs. This is set in the Fourth Age. I am not sure what the outcome of that story will be, but my gut feeling is that there will be a softening of the image (ever so slightly) that Tolkien left us with.

That's probably because, like davem and some others, I have at least some questions about having a particular group portrayed in such stark terms, even if they are enemies. It just doesn't feel comfortable. I guess if someone gave me a group of creatures and said they were "demons" or some other supernatural horror, I could accept that. But if you tell me that these beings originally carried the blood of men or elves, even if corrupted, I have a hard time seeing things in such black and white terms. I guess I've come to the point where I can at least admit the possibility of a exception within my own mind. (Heresy, I know. )

[Raynor]

I would say that the best explanation for the treatment of the orcs is that the prevalent idea of their nature that Tolkien entertained during the writting of LotR is that they have no fea, and thus are mere beasts. The article Orcs from Myths Transformed is dated about 1959, although, true enough, in 1954 he considered them, in a letter to Peter Hastings, as a race of rational incarnate. Also, first-generation orcs, who were humans and became corrupted, would have a fea, unless being an orc means a separation of fea and hroa... Well, I know this theory has holes in it, but I think that it can best explain their treatment in the LotR.

[davem]

I don't disagree with the simple fact that Orcs are cowardly, vicious, cruel, verminous, & all the rest. Its the absence of noble enemies that intrigues me most. The heroes never face a noble opponent, are never faced with killing an 'equal'.

Or let's pursue Child's line - could there possibly have been 'brave', self-sacrificing Orcs? Or Dunlendings, Southrons, Easterlings? Men who fought heroically, laying down their lives for their comrades... they may have been on the wrong side, but their deeds proved worthy of a song? Or let's consider a combat between Aragorn & an Haradrim warrior on the Pelennor - one who goes down fighting, or one who puts himself between a group of Rohirrim & his Lord.

Or do the 'rules' of Tolkien's world make such a thing a logical impossibility? And how would we react? What about a f'rinstance - a young man from Harad is swept up by tales of war in the North West, his lord is going to fight for his Master (Sauron), & the young man swears an oath of service & rides off proudly to fight the 'evil' Gondorians. On the battlefield he comes face to face with Aragorn or Eomer, fights to defend his fallen lord & is slain.

Is that possible in Tolkien's world, or must Haradrim all be evil, stupid, deluded & of a kind who if they fight courageously it is only for their own survival? Can we imagine such a warrior as I've described - or would that 'break the rules'? And can we imagine that young man being mentioned with respect not, obviously, for the cause he fought for, but for his heroism in defence of one he loved? Can we imagine one of our heroes praising his courage, or the courage of his comrades for standing in the face of the Rohirrim's charge? Or maybe there were such courageous individuals among the enemy, but they were not 'mentioned in dispatches' by the Bards & so their heroism & self sacrifice were forgotten

And if we can't, if all the enemy are cowards, & the heroes are merely taking part in 'vermin control' does that in any way 'lessen' them?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Hookbill, good example with Saruman there, and to that I'll also add the treatment and respect offered to the Mouth of Sauron.

Gandalf seems to have an amusing confrontation with The Mouth of Sauron and keeps bringing up the point of the 'rules of Mordor' as it were being different to elsewhere. The Mouth claims that he is an emissary and cannot be assailed and Gandalf retorts, "Where such laws hold, it is also custom for ambassadors to use less insolence." There seems to be a general acceptance that Mordor has been so corrupted that it is beyond respect, perhaps. Remember Gollum's reply to Sam saying, "It must be about tea time, at least in decent places where there is a tea time."
"We aren't in decent places!"

[Raynor]

I think that an issue mentioned in another thread is useful here too, the two different scales of morality mentioned by Tolkien in letter #246 in regards to judging Frodo: representing to ourselves the absolute ideal without compromise, and applying a scale tempered by mercy to others.

Concerning the second scale, the most relevant example is Gollum. Of him, the professor says in letter #181:

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Even concerning him, one of the greatest lessons of the story is that the heroes must show pity:

- He deserves death.

- Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it...My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least.

Gandalf applies in an admirable way the second scale of morality to Gollum, he is tempered in his judgement by pity, just as Bilbo and Frodo are tempered in action by it, even when their lives (and quests) were in danger.

However, I doubt that either Frodo, Bilbo or Gandalf would have hesitated to confront Gollum to the end, if doing otherwise would have meant certain, immediate harm to someone. And I believe this was the case with many of the orcs or other enemies. One can't pacify them, not even at the cost of one's life; direct confrontation remains the only way on a battle field, if lives are to be saved.

[davem]

Something just occurred to me. I've been thinking about a couple of films - Braveheart & Zulu.

If we compare the way the 'enemy' is depicted in each film we see something very different. In Braveheart the enemy (the English) are two dimensional pantomine villains, & we never get the sense that they are real complex human beings. They are little better than Orcs. They exist in order to be killed & there is never any sense that they have feelings or that there is any tragedy in their deaths.

In Zulu on the other hand we encounter the Zulus before the British soldiers. We see the Zulus at a celebration & see them as human beings with a culture. Even during the battle of Rourke's Drift we never forget that they are people, & in one of the final scenes they are shown, as one of the Boer officers states 'saluting fellow braves'. The piled bodies of the Zulu warriors are viewed with horror by the British officers & one tells the other that he couldn't go through such a horror more than once.

The terrible nature of the slaughter is brought home in Zulu because we have seen that the Zulu warriors are human beings right from the start of the movie, whereas in Braveheart the slaughter of the English is seen as morally unquestionable, & killing the enemy is killing 'sub-humans'. Interestingly, I read that Gibson's Wallace was not shown killing the deer he is about to shoot because that might seem 'cruel' to an audience - because the deer was beautiful & 'innocent'.

Now, Tolkien's work seems to take a 'Braveheartian' approach to the enemy, rather than a 'Zulu-ian' one. And to me Zulu comes across as a more powerful & moving piece of work that Braveheart precisely because the British are shown killing human beings & being 'forced' to acknowledge the horror of what they have done - even though it was necessary for their own survival. The British acknowledge the horror of their act, & the Zulus salute them as 'fellow braves'. There is an acknowledgement of a shared humanity - even though they have been killing each other, each side seeking to wipe out the other. Braveheart ends with jubilation in slaughter inflicted, Zulu in horror at the same thing. The British troops feel tired & sick & are just glad its over.

Which brings up another question. History is not simply written by the winners, but in the main by the 'establishment', & one wonders whether the ordinary 'grunts' on the battlefield did feel a 'respect' for the enemy warriors (even perhaps for the Orcs) - one can't help thinking back to the football match across No-man's land in WWI between British & German troops - not that one could imagine such a thing happening in M-e. But could there have been instances of Gondorian Rangers giving a nodding respect to the 'reckless courage' of the foes they faced - they were the enemy, but they put up an awesome fight.

Or would that 'break the rules' in making the servants of the enemy in some degree 'respectable'? So, it seems that one aspect of war does not enter into Tolkien's work at any point - respect for 'fellow braves'. But Tolkien himself must have felt that - he does state, after all, that there were good & bad on both sides in WWI.