Patriotism and the Lord of the Rings

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

(by the way it is interesting to note that almost all the kings in Tolkien's books show more patriotism than the ordinary individual)

I would add a caveat to that statement, Groin, because we know relatively little about what ordinary individuals felt about their countries. This is because, save for the Hobbits, we know virtually nothing about 'commoners', as Tolkien does not touch on their lives at all. But if one extrapolates Tolkien's view of the world into real-world history, we find much the same absence of how common folks felt at any given time. The great unwashed masses have, until only very recently, been avoided like the plague by historians (who were usually under the patronage of a noble in any case).

Most commoners lived short, squalid lives, were dragged off to war by press gangs, and were slaughtered brutally on the battlefield without any comprehension about what they were actually fighting for. Whether they cared about which tyrant they fought for mattered little anyway. Those legless, armless or blinded individuals who escaped death were trundled off back home, given a tin cup and spent their remaining wretched lives begging for alms in front of their local cathedral. Was Gondor or Rohan any different? Perhaps. With Tolkien's rather Platonic view of enlightened kings (as opposed to the callousness and savagery of the actual monarchy), we would hope the commoners' lot was better. It is, after all, a fantasy.

[Nogrod]

Basically posting just to say that I totally agree with Mort'h last post...

In history patriotism seems to be an ideology for those who can afford it - or those who have been lured into it not realising their efforts (death and suffering) only help those who gain from the conflicts sacrificing nothing themselves.

Okay. I admit being a bit too pessimistic on it up there. There sure are conflicts where people have actually fought literally for their friends and houses and their neighbours & their houses, and that is both brave and great. Although it's not automatically patriotic. But still many have fought for some higher glory be it nation, state or religion or some more vagueish thing like a concept ("freedom", "equality").

The question then becomes what is important enough fighting for and to whom? Or do peple actually fight for the reasons they believe they're fighting for? Like did the death of a Mid-Western 18-year old in Iraq help the cause of freedom? Did the death of an 18-year old Dunleding help the cause of their freedom from Rohan?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by AbercrombieOfRohan

What about the Rohirrim (or Rohanites as Lush would say…)? How come they didn’t overthrow Theoden, even though he was poisoned by Saruman?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Then you should take into account how settled a people are in their land and as Morthoron says, migrants might feel less connected to their land. The Rohirrim definitely give the impression of being a relatively 'new' and developing culture in Rohan (their wealth is portable, their literature still oral and not in libraries) - so their loyalties are to their people and less so to their land. Maybe this is why they do not challenge Theoden in his madness?

I don't think their "nomadishness" actually plays any considerable factor here. I think all nations in Middle-Earth would act like that, nomadic or not nomadic. I would say Groin was right here - like many others, he simply was not a good king, but he was a king nevertheless (like Fengel just shortly before him, too - he had really a bad reputation). The same as Denethor was a Steward. King is a king - any insurrections are usually wrongful in Middle-Earth, the order is indeed monarchy, as Tolkien himself liked it to be, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

If you look at history, particularly in the manner a philologist like Tolkien would, then the migration of clans, including their societal norms, customs and language, would take precedence over nationalism, which is a relatively new process in time. Patriotism, then, should be viewed as an Anglo-Saxon, Celt, Goth or a Norman would see it; that is, identifying with kin or clan over the physical boundaries of a given realm. In France, for instance, it wasn't until the 15th century that there was a consolidation of power by the monarchy sufficient enough to weld disparate Burgundians, Armagnacs, Guiennese, etc., into a unified country. In the Dark Ages, the later Merovingian kings ruled only the Ile de Paris, and had varying influence outside that limited scope.

Well, certainly. One has to bear in mind the fact that the idea of a "national state", or, the idea of a nation bound to some space - a country - is, in fact, generally a very modern thing only a few centuries old. And in Middle-Earth, indeed, it is usually not very important for anybody to defend the land itself - if somebody is defending a piece of land, it is usually because there is some city, some tower, some fortress etc. There is a very slight difference between this modern idea of a "national state" and, let's say, the Gondorians trying to win over Umbar. It has nothing to do with the fact that "this is Gondor", but simply with that that there is a monument of their ancient king and victory over Sauron.

And yadayada… what do you guys think about other cultures? What about the Elves (Rivendell, Lothlorien, Noldor even?)

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

The marchwardens of Lothlorien appear quite dedicated to the defense of their land, but I sometimes wonder if they are more devoted to Celeborn and Galadriel than to any sense of "country." Then again, is "country" an actual place, or a sense of community not dependent on a physical location? I think that for the mortals, a sense of physical place is important, as the land is passed down from generation to generation, but among the Elves, it might be less so, since in a long, immortal lifetime, one might get bored with staying in one place (as some of the Noldor did in Valinor), but could carry a devotion to a specific group of people from place to place.

Originally Posted by Guinevere

I think the Lothlorien Elves really love their country as well!

I believe with Elves, indeed, as it has been said, it usually really is not about the land itself (I recall some Elves leaving their homes in Southern Mirkwood just because it was getting too shadowy ), although not completely. Certainly the immortality means outliving any realms, and any changes, including those of the land - and ultimately, the Elves would all leave Middle-Earth for good, whatever realms they had there. Nevertheless, even they are quite "patriotic" about Lórien, or Gondolin and other places, for that matter. The answer is, in my opinion, not in the piece of land itself, but in what the land represents. Gondolin or Nargothrond are places of beauty, the pride of Elvendom. And Haldir's love for Lórien is of similar kind, I am sure: he does not love the piece of ground, but he loves the land blessed by the power of the Lady. Haldir's love for his land is actually of the most "basic" sort: he loves "leaf and branch, water and stone" - I don't know how about you, but I have some places near my home which I like to visit. For Haldir (and other Elves, I think most of them, very likely), this just goes deeper. And think about Treebeard. Now that is the same, and going even further! In fact, if we are to speak of any patriotism, then the Ents are certainly something! And, all right, a patriotism bordering with xenophobia belongs to the Old Forest (although there were other factors as well, and it was mainly the despocy of Old Man Willow and not as much a thing of the trees themselves).

What about Tom Bombadil?

[Thinlómien]

I'm glad I decided to read this thread after all, because it has made me think about stuff.

Unlike it has been argued, we actually get one common soldier's view of things: Beregond's. I think we would be right to call him a patriot, although his deepest loyalties lay with a single captain, Faramir. But is there in his admiration something of sharing Faramir's love of the country and the city? I think it seems so. So patriotism was not just for the nobility, but some commoners found it inspiring as well. (As a side issue, what would you guys say about Bergil? Is it simple boyishness sense of adventure that makes him stay in the city or is there actually patriotism involved?) At least patriotism is strongly involved in the scene where the different captains from other parts of Gondor come to Minas Tirith.

Which leads me to think... did the Gondorians cherish the ethnic differences in their country - like in this scene, all the different "peoples" are presented and it shown in positive light that they have different armies with their sopecial abilities coming to the city and the people cheer at them all? But still, those who are the stars of the show are the sons of the old Dúnedain lordfs - the knights of Dol Amroth. More or less all the big Gondorian heroes are of Númenórean descent.

Patriotism, it has a lot to do with nationalism and now I'm led to wonder if there were separatist movements inside Gondor. In our world, nationalism is a new-ish concept, but what about M-E? Did the "aborigines" of Gondor ever feel oppressed by the Dúnedain kings and folk? Did they desire to have a country of their own to rule as they will (for that sure is an ancient desire)? I think they generally accpeted the Dúnedain because they were treated well and a lot of good was done to them, and in the course of time the two peoples mingled so that most of Gondorians were of mixed blood. But the idea of a separatist "aborigine" clan somewhere in the mountains of western Gondor just sounds rather intriguing...

Ok, now I got carried away. Back to the topic.

Originally Posted by Ibrin

The marchwardens of Lothlorien appear quite dedicated to the defense of their land, but I sometimes wonder if they are more devoted to Celeborn and Galadriel than to any sense of "country."

A lot of good points have been made about the Lórien Elves, and I will not repeat them, but I still have something to add. You have to consider how long Galadriel and Celeborn had been there. The kingdom as it was would not have existed without them, they were to rule it for ever, for they were immortal - they were the kingdom. So in the case of these Elves, it is difficult if not impossible to separate loyalty to the leaders from loyalty to the country.

This, I think, applies to Elves in many other cases as well. So many kingdoms fell when their leaders fell. In Elvish systems, the leaders were the heart of the country even more permanently than in the monarchies of our worlds, where the leader changes from time to time simply because of the fact that people die.

An interesting case to consider in this light is Nargothrond and its leader changes. I wonder if they affected the patriotism of the citizens a lot... should recall more of it. But Nargothrond thrived in felagund's time, before the arrival of Celegorm and Curufin, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Groin

Theoden issue is easily solved as to why the people did not rise up in revolt. Monarchy was the only system of government known to the people and to suggest anything else would be just crazy talk. The king was appointed according to his family tree in the royal class, of course you are going to get a few bad heirs who are rotten kings, but for the majority that was tolerated so long as the majority of heirs were dutiful to the position of king (by the way it is interesting to note that almost all the kings in Tolkien's books show more patriotism than the ordinary individual).

Also, I think that we should look a bit less narrow-mindedly at the case of Théoden. Was he such a bad king, in fact? Did the general majority of the commoners think his avoidance of the war was bad? We have Gamling clearly expressing his approval of the new policy, but what about the peasants of Wold or Eastfold, or the people of Edoras and its surroundings? The war was not at their doorstep in the same manner as at the Westfolders'. And if you forget about the war, do we have any reason to expect that Rohan was badly or unjustly governed under Gríma&Théoden? And as one last point, people had been generally content with their kings in Rohan, so there was no general disappointment with the ruling family, and besides, we haven't been told anything about Théoden's early years as a king. Maybe he was a loved and a good king then? Maybe he used to be popular among the people? Well-established popularity fades slowly, I think it quite likely that Rohirrim were slow to "turn against" Théoden because they still remembered him as a good king.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Unlike it has been argued, we actually get one common soldier's view of things: Beregond's. I think we would be right to call him a patriot, although his deepest loyalties lay with a single captain, Faramir. But is there in his admiration something of sharing Faramir's love of the country and the city? I think it seems so. So patriotism was not just for the nobility, but some commoners found it inspiring as well. (As a side issue, what would you guys say about Bergil? Is it simple boyishness sense of adventure that makes him stay in the city or is there actually patriotism involved?) At least patriotism is strongly involved in the scene where the different captains from other parts of Gondor come to Minas Tirith.

Indeed. Gondorians, from my point of view, are obvious patriots, even the common people. Even Faramir and his Rangers, as far as I can remember, at least I got this impression. Although, of course, they are soldiers, so one can hardly expect any complaints from them. But even in general, I am imagining the common Gondorians a bit of the sort of the cheered-up people: "Every sheep from my herd gives wool, from which my wife can make blankets which could be sent to our brave soldiers who are staying all winter in Osgiliath, protecting our homes!"

Which leads me to think... did the Gondorians cherish the ethnic differences in their country - like in this scene, all the different "peoples" are presented and it shown in positive light that they have different armies with their sopecial abilities coming to the city and the people cheer at them all?

Well, aside from the "purest" Dúnedain, as you mentioned, I doubt the differencies otherwise play much of a role. It is no different, in my opinion, from let's say the Shire, where you have the Tooks and Brandybucks and Bagginses and whoever else. And mainly, I think it has little to do with the cheering - people were simply cheering because they saw more of these "brave soldiers who are going to protect our homes" - cf. above (and the coolest were those of Dol Amroth). It possibly was only that old Beregond Sr., sitting in a pub with his friends, went on saying "Ah yes, I have been to Lamedon, it's a queer folk out there, you know, all day spending with the sheep... and they couldn't even speak properly, if you ever heard how funnily they pronounce 'Denethor'..." But that would be about it. So, I don't think the Gondorians (and now one would be also to ask what do you mean by "Gondorians" - the common people, or the nobles?) actually cared in any way about what ethnic groups is their nation composed of. They simply were all Gondorians (and for quite a long time), only old Beregond Sr. could complain over the Lamedonians having funny accent, that's about it.

But in general, it seemed that the various parts of Gondor were quite a lot in contact with each other - for example, Ioreth had relatives in Imloth Melui, I have no idea where it was, but I gather that it was not quite next door. (Although, maybe all Ioreth's family was living in Imloth Melui, and only the young perspective girl just went for studies to Minas Tirith and started a big career...)

Patriotism, it has a lot to do with nationalism and now I'm led to wonder if there were separatist movements inside Gondor. In our world, nationalism is a new-ish concept, but what about M-E? Did the "aborigines" of Gondor ever feel oppressed by the Dúnedain kings and folk? Did they desire to have a country of their own to rule as they will (for that sure is an ancient desire)? I think they generally accpeted the Dúnedain because they were treated well and a lot of good was done to them, and in the course of time the two peoples mingled so that most of Gondorians were of mixed blood.

I am very certain that there were such groups. For example, the Dead Men of Dunharrow (before they became Dead) were a kind of extreme example of something, which in my opinion existed among the, as you say, "aborigines" of Gondor. And remember the still existing division between the "lesser men" and those of Dúnadan descent: I am pretty certain that all the time, there existed some groups of people (on both sides) who were displeased with one or the other. But as we see from the history, it never turned into any large-scale idea of rebellion.

But the idea of a separatist "aborigine" clan somewhere in the mountains of western Gondor just sounds rather intriguing...

Yes, and they could form also a weird secret cult in the White Mountains, could they

Also, I think that we should look a bit less narrow-mindedly at the case of Théoden. Was he such a bad king, in fact? Did the general majority of the commoners think his avoidance of the war was bad? We have Gamling clearly expressing his approval of the new policy, but what about the peasants of Wold or Eastfold, or the people of Edoras and its surroundings? The war was not at their doorstep in the same manner as at the Westfolders'. And if you forget about the war, do we have any reason to expect that Rohan was badly or unjustly governed under Gríma&Théoden? And as one last point, people had been generally content with their kings in Rohan, so there was no general disappointment with the ruling family, and besides, we haven't been told anything about Théoden's early years as a king. Maybe he was a loved and a good king then? Maybe he used to be popular among the people? Well-established popularity fades slowly, I think it quite likely that Rohirrim were slow to "turn against" Théoden because they still remembered him as a good king.

Indeed, actually, I see no reason why Théoden should be regarded as bad king except for the very last few years? We hear nothing particularly wrong about him. And even then, indeed, as you say, who knows if some common people did not actually approve even latter Gríma's policies... yesss! It was all just these "grumblers" like Éomer, this young snake, whispering bad things about the King, troubling the minds of his poor people.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Most commoners lived short, squalid lives, were dragged off to war by press gangs, and were slaughtered brutally on the battlefield without any comprehension about what they were actually fighting for. Whether they cared about which tyrant they fought for mattered little anyway.

Oh, rubbish. A 'Norman Keeps' view of history, the mud-and-dung school which sees 'oppressed masses' everywhere.

Take a look at the contemporary accounts of the common Englishmen- and not just the impoverished, but yeoman farmers- who flocked voluntarily to the banners of Edward III and Henry V. Or consider the fact that a couple centuries later plays on the subject, stuffed full of flag-waving jingoism, would be immense popular hits with the Globe's penny groundlings- scant years after the Armada's defeat to general rejoicing.

Or consider that during the Plantagenets' wars in France, the use of French was so 'unpatriotic' that it vanished from daily speech- giving rise to Middle English. (And the St George Flag as well).

Or if you want to go back a bit, read some of Pericles' speeches- to a nation of citizen-soldiers. The Athenian underclass were slaves and didn't fight.

Human beings are tribal, whether its football boosters or nations at war. We love to have an 'us,' to be contrasted with 'them.'

EDIT to keep it on topic- the Rohirrim put up with Theoden's grandfather Fengel, a long-lived and lousy king.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Oh, rubbish. A 'Norman Keeps' view of history, the mud-and-dung school which sees 'oppressed masses' everywhere.

Take a look at the contemporary accounts of the common Englishmen- and not just the impoverished, but yeoman farmers- who flocked voluntarily to the banners of Edward III and Henry V.

...And stayed in France as parasitic mercenaries -- like Robert Knollys, John Hawkwood and thousands of others -- who preyed on the French countryside for most of the 14th and part of the 15th century. Don't kid yourself, it wasn't patriotism, it was the lure of loot. And the grateful English kings, in lieu of payment to his troops, merely left them in France to fend for themselves. Once the French managed to produce a king that wasn't genetically imbecilic, like Charles V, the easy pickings dried up, and the war became very unpopular. Taxes increased due to resulting lack of funds being siphoned from France, and the spiralling inflation led to the Peasant Revolt under Wat Tyler and John Ball.

This was also the case in 1066, as the Norman lords (and half the murderers of Europe) followed William the Bastard across the Channel to feast on Anglo-Saxon England. A grateful William gave out huge tracts of land to his lords, the only way his 'patriotic' pals would have remained in England after stripping it bare.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Or consider the fact that a couple centuries later plays on the subject, stuffed full of flag-waving jingoism, would be immense popular hits with the Globe's penny groundlings- scant years after the Armada's defeat to general rejoicing.

But my post did not concern 16th century or later Europe; rather, it concerned earlier periods more in context with the Lord of the Rings. I was primarily referring to the Dark Ages and Middle Ages. Even a discussion of wars during the 14th century represent the germination of nationalism (particularly amongst the English and the French) that was not as discernible in earlier periods, particularly the dichotomy between Anglo-Saxon peasantry and Norman lords, which would be a very Tolkienesque analogy from a philological and historical standpoint.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Or consider that during the Plantagenets' wars in France, the use of French was so 'unpatriotic' that it vanished from daily speech- giving rise to Middle English. (And the St George Flag as well).

Well, you are being rather revisionist. The first actual Angevin 'King of England' was Henry II; prior to that, their appellation was 'King of the English' -- an important distinction, and to the point I was making earlier. But the use of French was waning as early as the death of William I. King Edward I spoke English entirely; however, the epitome of Plantagenet Kings, Edward III, spoke primarily French, and since you refer to Shakespeare, do you not find it interesting that in the play Henry V there is an entire scene where the king's dialogue is in French? To be fair to your argument, Henry V did also inaugurate the use of Chancery Standard English, and his reign was the first to have English used as the language of government documents.

But French never truly 'vanished' from daily speech, which is a preposterous exaggeration. Actually, Middle-English is a melding of French and Old English, if you follow the theory that M-E is a Creole language. Creolization is a linguistic process that reflects the maturation of an inferior language (in this case Anglo-Saxon) to reflect the sophistication and complexity of the dominant language (Norman French) over a prolonged period of time. As it is, there are countless French words still mucking up the language.

Intriguingly, and germane to Creolization, is the number of borrowed French words used to define nobility and power in English. If one is a lowly peasant farmer, one has chickens, cows, lambs, sheep and pigs (all Anglo-Saxon variants); however, once the farm animals have been slaughtered and pass to the refined lord's plate, they have become poultry, beef, veal, mutton and pork (all derivative of French). In addition, the English parliamentary and judicial systems both rely heavily on French (the words parliamentary and judicial both, of course, borrowed from France).

Now, to stay on topic after a lengthy diggression...let me see, let me see...ah yes, Rohan! Okay, I am relieved.