Gandalf, blood of hobbits on his hands?

[Gordis]

About alliancs. Indeed the only lasting and successful alliance was that between the Gondorians and the Rohirrim. And Andsigil is right :it worked so well because the people in question were alike, were from the same Three Houses of the Edain. Strange no one has posted this quote yet, where Faramir speaks about the Men of Rohan:

And we love them: tall men and fair women, valiant both alike, golden-haired, bright-eyed, and strong; they remind us of the youth of Men, as they were in the Elder Days. Indeed it is said by our lore-masters that they have from of old this affinity with us that they are come from those same Three Houses of Men as were the Númenoreans in their beginning not from Hador the Goldenhaired, the Elf-friend, maybe, yet from such of his sons and people as went not over Sea into the West, refusing the call.
'For so we reckon Men in our lore, calling them the High, or Men of the West, which were Númenoreans; and the Middle Peoples, Men of the Twilight, such as are the Rohirrim and their kin that dwell still far in the North; and the Wild, the Men of Darkness- LOTR "The Window on the West"

So it was much easier for "High" Men, the Numenoreans, to make alliances with their kin, "Middle" Men, than with some "wild" men like the Dunlendings or the Hillmen of Rhudaur, or the Men of the White Mountains.

And even a marriage of Valacar to Vidumavi was frowned upon by the proud Gondorians as a misalliance with one of "lesser" blood. Eventually it led to Kin-strife.
Tolkien was not racist himself, but I am afraid the Numenoreans, both in Gondor and Arnor, were.
Why did the Hillmen of Rhudaur so universally turn against their Dunedain rulers and supported Angmar? Why did Dunlendings follow Saruman? I suspect Dunedain and Rohirrim racism was a huge factor.

For a good alliance there should be mutual profit; mutual, not one-sided. The Men of the Eoteod needed land. Gondor gave them the land, because Gondor had land to spare. Their ancestors had grabbed a huge portion of the West of Middle Earth, but were too sophisticated to keep their own numbers growing. In return for the land grant, the Gondorians obtained all those lances and swords eager to come to their aid at the first call. And to be sure of the Eorling' loyalty Cirion made them swear a quite terrible oath, in the keeping of Eru and the Valar. That alliance was the smartest political decision the rulers of Gondor had ever made - and it worked.

But could they do the same with say, Harad? The Haradrim were even more numerous then the Eotheod, reproducing fast, and always needed more land. Would Gondor grant them these lands in return for the alliance? And to Variags? And to Easterlings? There was not enough land in Gondor to satisfy everybody. And what was on the borders, the "wild" men managed to take without permission.

Also would the "wild" men, who probably had never heard of the Valar, keep their Oath as faithfully as the Rohirrim did?

And then there was Sauron, who was not that bad a ruler after all, if we look at things objectively. And he had already promised the lands of Gondor to the very same peoples - and sorry, was much more likely to grant them to his followers than the Gondorians themselves. Beat that…

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Tolkien was not racist himself, but I am afraid the Numenoreans, both in Gondor and Arnor, were.
Why did the Hillmen of Rhudaur so universally turn against their Dunedain rulers and supported Angmar? Why did Dunlendings follow Saruman? I suspect Dunedain and Rohirrim racism was a huge factor.

I'm afraid you're right. As to the Haradrim, I think their long animosity against the Numenoreans was not entirely unjustified. It probably started as far back as the Second Age, when the King's Men came to their shores as conquerors exacting heavy tribute, and the suprematist politics of the Gondorian kings in the Third Age certainly didn't make things better. I guess Sauron's Ministery of Propaganda had an easy job exploiting that justified grudge, just like Saruman with the Dunlendings.
Tolkien's own view is quite another matter. I don't get the feeling that he meant to paint Gondor as an ideal kingdom, nor that he wholeheartedly endorsed the way they dealt with the Southrons and Easterlings. The Dunedain were the good guys in so far as they were the only viable opposition to Sauron, but in every other respect they were as fallible as any other humans.

Back to Gandalf and the Hobbits. TM, I agree that once the Northern Kingdom was firmly reestablished, there would be no more need for the Hobbits to exercise their capacity for self-defense, so yes, they'd probably revert to their peaceful way of life. So I see the Scouring more as an afterlude (if that word actually exists) to the War of the Rings than a prelude to the Hobbits taking an active role in the power politics of the Fourth Age.
I'm sure Frodo would have agreed with you wishing for a solution that didn't cost 19 hobbit lives (not to mention the killed ruffians). Would he also have blamed Gandalf for not helping ? I don't think so. Gandalf's job, as I see it, was aiding mortal men (including hobbits) in their fight against the last incarnation of evil on a mythological scale. The Scouring, on the other hand, was just a fight against mere human evil (Saruman being reduced to little more than a mortal villain without his Maiarin powers), so Gandalf was forbidden to meddle by something like the Maiarin equivalent of the Federation Prime Directive.

So, did the Scouring make the Hobbits better? Probably not. Was it deplorable, in so far as it cost lives? Sure. Was it necessary? I'm afraid it was. No clean solution to anything in this Age of Men...

[Formendacil]

A couple different thoughts here...

Firstly, going back to the question of whether Gandalf is blameworthy here reminds me strongly of the philosophical Problem of Evil--whether God is blameworthy for allowing evil to occur, except Gandalf has (I think) the legitimate excuse of not being an omniscient, omnipotent being--powerful, but most certainly not unlimited, and although Gandalf has a certain amount of prescience denied other beings, he is still a Maia taken form as a Man, with most (if not all) the limitations that implies. A defensible case can be made, I think, that Gandalf was not aware that Saruman was in the Shire.

But even if Gandalf was aware, this does not mean he had to step in. One of the theodicies (that is, arguments that attempt to explain the Problem of Evil) is to suggest that God allows evil things to happen because this is necessary for our free will to function. I would suggest a similar explanation here: that Gandalf may have known indeed that Saruman was in the Shire, but because he had stripped Saruman of his staff and powers, he knew that Saruman could not pose more of a threat than the Hobbits could handle--and therefore he stayed out of it. Indeed, if you look at Gandalf's actions throughout the Lord of the Rings, he tends to use his power chiefly and most obviously against enemies that truly outmatch others--such as his battle against the Riders on Weathertop, or again against the Witchking in Gondor, or the obvious one against the Balrog. But where the enemy is one that others are capable of handling, Gandalf tends to step back into an advisory role, as when preparing for the assault on the Black Gate.

In the case of the Shire, Gandalf would be in a position to know, if anyone would, whether or not the Hobbits were capable of action against Sharkey and his villains, as indeed they proved to be, and it strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis that Gandalf would have abstained from interference out of respect for their own maturity as a community and people to be able to handle their own problems.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In the case of the Shire, Gandalf would be in a position to know, if anyone would, whether or not the Hobbits were capable of action against Sharkey and his villains, as indeed they proved to be, and it strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis that Gandalf would have abstained from interference out of respect for their own maturity as a community and people to be able to handle their own problems.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by The Might

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

This might come as a surprise to you, but sometimes I am actually accused of 'deep thinking'. I shan't belabor the point about Wilhelm and his generals, as it diminishes the original question, but I will comment that I am well aware of all the precedents of WWI, whom did what to whom, and who sided with whom. I will only leave with a comment from the academic journalist Alex Woodcock-Clarke, who stated: "He [Wilhelm II] may not have been 'the father of war' but he was certainly its 'godfather'."

Wilhelm, who was indeed diagnosed as a 'meddling megalomaniac' by contemporaries, pushed Austro-Hungary into a hard-line stance against Serbia, and Germany was the only country to invade neutral countries, like Luxembourg and Belgium (where Germans slaughtered civilians). I suggest you read the Pulitzer-Prize winning "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman, which brilliantly encapsulates the first month of WWI. It is not merely that Germany fomented the war, refused offers of detente and struck first, it is they continued the war another four years, when many of the German generals realized they could hope for nothing better than a stalemate after their Schlieffen Plan utterly failed after the first month of the war.

I am not obviating the parts played by the other combatants, as WWI was a miasma of muddle-headed lunacy on all sides; however, Wilhelm and his generals certainly bear the greatest culpability in starting and continuing the war. The evidence is there, whatever revisionist or partisan nonsense you care to quote.

Originally Posted by The Might

And really bringing it to a bigger scale - do you always need to kill something that's in your way? Because if yes, then we have a lot of killing to do in the time to come.

TM, as you seem quite intelligent, I will have to surmise that you refuse to take the original discussion in context. Given the situation and the time period (an era that precluded such modern inventions as 'detente' and 'passive resistance, and where these newfangled contrivances would be utterly alien in both a Middle-earth and a 'real world' sense), and considering that the usurper of power within the Shire (that being Saruman), whom you've already admitted lacked a conscience, and Saruman's barbaric band of cutthroats and thieves (again, I highly doubt they differed much from the murdering bands of merciless mercenaries who made life hell in 14th century France), would not ever feel compassion or sympathy for the hobbits they oppressed. They, in fact, thrived on the hobbits' misery, and purposely set out to destroy the Shire's bucolic way of life (clear-cutting trees, bulldozing hobbit-holes, replacing them with mean shacks, erecting smoke-belching chimneys, etc.).

This was Saruman's intent. In the meanest, vilest manner possible, he set out to destroy the Hobbits, believing them an easy mark. You'll notice he had little success in Bree (Ferny and his men were "shown the gate" as Butterbur said). As far as Gandalf, he said succinctly:

'I am with you at present,' said Gandalf. 'but soon I shall not be. I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folks to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.

In context with the 'scouring' and Frodo's evident distaste for battle, Merry said it best:

'But if there are many of these ruffians,' said Merry, 'it will certainly mean fighting. You won't rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo.'

So, after this circumlocutious (but intriguing) discussion, we see that, in context with the era presented (vague, certainly, but definitely free of any trappings from the Enlightenment or later), and with the specific dire situation (where Lotho had been killed, Lobelia and Fatty imprisoned, and the ruffians under Sharkey intent on killing the newcome hobbits, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin), battle was the only outcome certain to expel the tyrants from the Shire. The quick and decisive actions by the Hobbits actually reduced the casualties and ongoing misery of the Shire. As you may be aware, any effort at 'passive resistance' in real history (such as in India and South Africa) takes decades to bear fruit -- and hundreds or thousands of people die in the effort. Therefore, only 19 Hobbits dying, although grievous, was a small price to pay for freedom, and inordinately small compared to the actual wars that occurred in Rohan and Gondor.

Context, we must have context!

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Therefore, only 19 Hobbits dying, although grievous, was a small price to pay for freedom, and inordinately small compared to the actual wars that occurred in Rohan and Gondor.

The related thought occurs to me here--and I feel I might be harping a bit on the free will theme a bit--that those 19 Hobbits, though actually killed by the ruffians, may have, for all we know, been more responsible for their own demise than Gandalf, or Frodo, or Saruman might have been. My thought therein is not so much to remove potential culpability from those mighty agents, but to remember that the Hobbits all involved themselves in the battle voluntarily, and presumably wanted to play their part in the eviction of the ruffians. In a sense it denies their deaths value to say that they were completely unnecessary and avoidable.

And, indeed, we really can't say they were avoidable. Indeed, it is fine to speculate that Gandalf's presence in the Scouring of the Shire would have lowered the casualty rate even more than its already low actual count, but there is no reason to assume this is so. Again, I point out that Gandalf is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and although a powerful being, it is possible that drawing too powerful a being into the conflict might have resulted in greater bloodshed.

To speculate, for example, Gandalf's presence might have meant no Hobbit casualties at Bywater, or he might have been recognised as soon as they crossed the High Hay, and thus alerted Sharkey to his presence, rousing all the ruffians into much better martial order than the lazy lot that was trounced at Bywater. Indeed, a larger, better-gathered ruffian force expecting to fight a wizard might have given a better account of itself in battle, or (being cowards) they might have taken to slaughtering civilians. We have ample evidence, after all, that Saruman was not so much intent on changing and ruling the Shire as on ruining it, and his last ditch effort if Gandalf were to arrive might have been the wholesale massacre of the inhabitants of Hobbiton.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Context, we must have context!

I so desperately want to make a quip about Biblical exegesis here, but there is no relevance to the topic and we have plenty of real world digression in the WW1 tangent.

[The Might]

Well, as it seems that everyone else judges that this was the best way to solve things in the Shire I'll give up the discussion.
If even Merry speaks against me, then indeed within the LotR context there does not seem to have been any other way to solve things at that time.

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context. Perhaps because for many it is an inconvenient truth as Mr. Gore would put it that they would be ready to sacrifice lives for some goal.

Just like Merry and Pippin did. I doubt that the Hobbits taking part knew what awaited them, Formendacil. I doubt they can be expected to have really taken death into consideration. It is as if you're expecting adventurous teens sent to Irak wanting to be part of something grand to also expect their deaths in some explosion. They don't, because they aren't mature or wise enough or in the Hobbits case may have never witnessed or heard of such an end. The volunteering Hobbits can surely be praised for their bravery, but we by taking the context into consideration as Morth said we should do it becomes clear that they did not expect or know death. Who did? The four companions and Gandalf. Bringing the guilt question back to them for sending the Hobbits into battle, well knowing the possible consequence. Ok, except Frodo, he didn't want battle actually.

But, yeah, ok, so the Scouring made sense, no matter who was guilty for the casualties. And so did all the other killing in M-e made in the name of good, peace, order, the Valar, etc. I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Might

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context. Perhaps because for many it is an inconvenient truth as Mr. Gore would put it that they would be ready to sacrifice lives for some goal.


I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

There is a very good reason most posters don't wish to take the discussion out of the context of LotR and it has nothing to do with squimishness over an inconvenient truth.

It has to do with forum posting policy.

Originally Posted by The Barrow Wight, via Estelyn Telcontar, Moderator

“This board is for Tolkien-related discussions."

It's a basic rule of the Barrow Downs, which does not have any non-Tolkien discussions. So discussion of war generally or philosophically or historically or contemporarily does not belong unless it clearly relates to Tolkien's work. When the war in Iraq started members were asked to remove WWI poems from their signatures because they could be construed as fomenting off topic dicussions--at least, I remember Squatter removing some beautiful poetry from his sig. Same for religion. Same for other authors. That's why, for instance, we have a thread comparing Golden Compass with LotR, but no thread alone discussing Pullman. I would say that Tolkien is our one Ring here, but that would be a poor jest.

For more info, see this post by Estelyn: Guidelines for Forum Posting. She has some good things to say, too, about debate, discussion and accepting criticism and opposing thought.

I've really appreciated Formendacil's posts on free will and Gandalf. I think they made the question relevant to the ethos of LotR. I could see, for instance, a more modern writer not having Wormtongue killed but having the hobbits and Wormtongue having to work out their differences. But the harsh irony of his end says something about Tolkien's ideas on fate, dramatic structure, and the sorry nature of warfare.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by The Might

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context.

For myself, I'm not willing to discuss it outside the LotR context because I don't believe this is the proper forum for it. This being the Books forum, I would expect the discussion to be a literary one, first and foremost. I'm not exactly sure where a discussion of Tolkien's literary politics versus Real World politics would be best located, but for me, this doesn't really feel like the right place. Just my opinion, of course.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by The Might

But, yeah, ok, so the Scouring made sense, no matter who was guilty for the casualties. And so did all the other killing in M-e made in the name of good, peace, order, the Valar, etc. I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

Might, regrettable as killing is in real life, do you actually think The Lord of the Rings would have been better if... well... if none of what now makes up the story was in it?

[The Might]

Meh, I give, I give, you point out well that there was a lot of mistrust between Gondorians and Easterlings, especially considering the "Easterlings used for human sacrifices in the Second Age" part which I had previously forgot.

Ok, you win this one. I accept indeed that under these circumstances it would have been fairly unlikely for the Haradrim to accept a Gondorian offer over a Sauronian one. At least at the time of the War of the Ring.

Perhaps had the Kings of Gondor been less suprematist as Pitchwife says, there would have been more chances for peace earlier on and for a closer relation to the southern and eastern tribes. I guess education also plays a big role here, it is easy to subdue and persuade the less educated, so had Gondorians also tried to educate them instead of just fighting them off and conquering them there would have been hope.

I know, I know, a lot of "ifs" above, one could go as far back and say, "and if Feanor had not made the Silmarils" etc., but still I feel that in a different timeline with kinder Gondorians in the Third Age Khand and Harad may have been viable alliance partners.

To end this just had one thought, one slight piece of evidence that the Haradrim and the Variags kept their word and didn't do any evil against Gondor is that the story "Return of the shadow" (correct name?!) actually was centered around evil Gondorians and not revolting Haradrim. Of course, the story was not finished, so it is only slight evidence.


Now to the Hobbits. I agree there Pitchwife, except on one point, namely that of the last question.

Was it necessary? I say it was not. I again feel that there would have been a cleaner way out of it, even in the Age of Men. Always answering by violence is easy and often useful, but not necessarily the only and probably not the best way.

Just a little comparison for which I hoped to not be judged too harshly, I think it again fits since it is highly contemporary, an issue as I am writing the post actually.

It's just like with what Israel is doing in the Gaza strip. Attacked from within this area, like the Hobbits were attacked by the ruffians from the outside. It responds with violence.

Was this action also necessary?

And really bringing it to a bigger scale - do you always need to kill something that's in your way? Because if yes, then we have a lot of killing to do in the time to come.