Who do you reckon is the braver race in general, men or elves?

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The Elves were braver. They were not prone to panic and fearful flight like men, nor did they betray their comrades in battle as men are sometimes wont to do.

Need I mention the betrayel and fall of the great fortress city of Gondolin, it was an elf who betrayed them.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Need I mention the betrayel and fall of the great fortress city of Gondolin, it was an elf who betrayed them.

Maeglin was a single individual (and by no means representative of Elves in general); however, I was referring to betrayal in battle by large numbers of men, such as Uldor and his entire host of Easterlings in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. If you are referring to betrayal outside of battle (as Maeglin would be), then there are the cursed army of men of the Dimholt who betrayed Isildur.

I can't recall an entire army of elves being turned in a horde of walking dead due their cowardly betrayal, can you?

[Elmo]

Well a lot of the Elves did get turned into the undead, when they refused to go to Mandos when they died. Maybe that isn't cowardice but a lack of faith. Two different things believe it or not.

[Bêthberry]

I'm going to pop in here with a different tangent. I realise this is just the sort of discussion that Downers relish, so I hope this isn't exactly some throwing some water on the debate, more like a new pot, perhaps.

But, it is really quite in keeping with the values suggested in LotR to make even general or broad comparisons between the Middle-earth races? I know we endlessly generalise about elvish ennui and hobbitish resilience and dwarvish stamina, but is it really kosher to compare races? It's not something we accept readily nowadays in the primary world--racial comparison--and to me it has the sense of being quite far from anything Tolkien himself would have considered. Individual members certainly are up for comparison, but entire races?

Given the values suggested in LotR, is it really valuable or feasible to make comparative generalisations about the races? I suppose, too, one could ask if race is precisely the best word here to characterise the elves, hobbits, men, dwarves. Are they not separate species (which in several special circumstances can apparently interbreed?)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well (unfortunately I'll be a little brief here), I think it's a good point you raise, but I think it's not that inappropriate to find some common "racial traits" (and by the way, as for species or race or whatever word you use, I don't see difference here... it will be playing with words, what we simply mean by it here is Elves, Dwarves, Men... everyone knows what it means). Of course you can't apply some trait on every single individual, but in Middle-Earth, in some things, on the contrary to our world, there really are differences between the races. The Dwarves have something specific about them, as do the Elves, as do the Orcs and even Hobbits compared to the Men - and ALL Dwarves, ALL Elves... etc. seem to have it. Or are supposed to have it, the way the books portray it. Of course, it will be a matter of interesting "post-modern" (in the best sense) interpretation to try to say that in fact, there was nothing like specific racial traits and that the only thing all the Dwarves, all the Elves etc. have in common is that they have some common ancestry, culture etc.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I suspect the answer would depend on whom you asked. An Elf (aside from a really empathetic one like Finrod) would argue 'what difference does a paltry few years make, anyway?' Certainly I can see Thingol saying something like that. Whereas a Man of course would say quite the opposite, along Andreth's lines.

[Lush]

This is a tough, and interesting sort of question.

I'd look at it purely from the perspective of personal sacrifice, and say that it was braver for humans to give up their lives. I don't think the book gives us specific clues as to whether or not one race was braver than the other. I'd say that the act of willingly giving one's life is a bigger deal for a human, from what I understand.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Are they not separate species (which in several special circumstances can apparently interbreed?)

Yes, I suppose you could say there is a genus (Children of Illuvatar) separated into species and subspecies (Men, Elves, Orc, etc.); whereas race would identify specific differentiations within a given species (Easterlings, Numenoreans, Dunlendings, Rohirrim, Haradrim, etc.). But doesn't all that taxonomic biology get a bit tedious, particularly with Tolkien's penchant for vaguery and backpedaling (Orcs -- did they arise from Men or Elves?)?

[Gollum the Great]

It was a greater sacrifice for men by giving up their shorter life and plunging into the unknown, so in a sense it was bolder for those who did it, but more elves were willing fight. Let's just say, 50/50.

[Bêthberry]

Well, I'm glad to see my initial response wasn't taken as too off topic and I thank Legate and Morthoron for their replies to my query.

Originally Posted by Legate

(and by the way, as for species or race or whatever word you use, I don't see difference here... it will be playing with words, what we simply mean by it here is Elves, Dwarves, Men... everyone knows what it means

Well, certainly we all know what/who Elmo was referring to, but I was thinking of the old nurture/nature argument that swung back and forth throughout the last century and so on that ground I was thinking that someone like alatar would be very good at some scientific precision in our naming of things, because while it is true that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, sometimes the naming of things determines the direction of thought.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Yes, I suppose you could say there is a genus (Children of Illuvatar) separated into species and subspecies (Men, Elves, Orc, etc.); whereas race would identify specific differentiations within a given species (Easterlings, Numenoreans, Dunlendings, Rohirrim, Haradrim, etc.). But doesn't all that taxonomic biology get a bit tedious, particularly with Tolkien's penchant for vaguery and backpedaling (Orcs -- did they arise from Men or Elves?)?

Tolkien's vaguery was exactly what I was thinking of too, how he sets up these very different branches of the children--good point there that they are all called Illuvatar's children, even Aule's dwarves--but then through Frodo and Sam's heroism and Legolas and Gimli's friendship and I suppose Arwen and Aragorn's love goes to some effort to counter the separatism or isolation of the races. These cross racial highlights are what made me wonder if, ultimately, it would be counterproductive to make comparisons across the races.

But to get back closer to the topic, does Arwen's choice tell us anything about the difference between elven and human willingness to sacrifice one's life? After all, the Appendix suggests that it was not until Aragorn's death that Arwen came really to understand what this gift was all about. So, were any other elves really able to comprehend death as humans understood it? And if not, then bravery might not be something to apply to them.

Well, enough rambling.