Tolkienian Heroes

[Pitchwife]

Welcome back, Marky - pleased to meet another spectre of Elder Days!

That essay PotH linked to is indeed nice, but it fails to mention Aragorn's mental fight with Sauron via the Palantir and his passing through the Paths of the Dead, both of which I consider his greatest heroic deeds - that's where he comes into his own in my opinion and starts acting like a king even before he was crowned.

Since the essay also mentions Roland, I think he could be more fittingly compared to Boromir than Aragorn (who would then fill the role of Charlemagne), at least as far as their deaths are concerned. But as Roland is a French rather than English hero, I don't know how much help that'll be to you.

[Marky Lazer]

That essay has some useful information, though it comments only on the shortcomings on Beowulf and Roland (have read both), but it fails to see Aragorn's shortcomings. The Path of Dead, for example. It turned out great, but walking off from an important battle, not knowing whether you return is very unkinglike (if that's a word) in the same way Beowulf went off to fight the dragon (he was king already at that point). Beowulf was the best king "ever" and jeopardises the good fortune of his folk going off on such a dangerous feat. Even though Aragorn wasn't king yet, the people already saw him as one, and dashing off into the Path of the Dead, with chances of never returning, is dodgy still, no matter whether it was the right choice in the end (because none could have predicted that at the time he made his decision).

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interesting thoughts, Marky, but there's another factor involved in the episode of Aragorn and the Paths of the Dead: the prophecy that told him to use them. He may have made a "mistake" as far as superficial military planning was concerned, but the whole War of the Ring was more a spiritual endeavour than a military one, or rather, the military effort was only one part of the whole. When a hero's story is told on a mythical level, his actions go deeper than modern thinking would perceive them.

[Pitchwife]

Quite the contrary, I'd say, Marky. If he was running off from one important battle (which he knew would be taken care of by Gandalf and Théoden), it was only in order to run towards another, no less crucial battle. He knew about the Corsair fleet approaching Pelargir via the Palantír, and that had to be dealt with as well. The Paths of the Dead were his only hope to not only reach Pelargir in time but also raise an army on the way that was strong enough to counter that threat. True, it was a dangerous path, but as Esty has pointed out, he knew he was meant to take it and he, as Isildur's heir, was the only one who could command the Dead. Anything but a military mistake!

[Marky Lazer]

But it isn't about what Aragorn believes, is it?

Beowulf believed he did the right thing going back years later to slay the dragon (but it didn't turn out so great, leaving an entire people kingless).

The people, the common soldiers who need to fight alongside Aragorn, see him walking off into the Paths of the Dead, to them that equals certain death. The morale of the troops would collapse, now that this fellow walks off and takes with him them two outlandish heroes as well that did so well in previous skirmishes. That's how he jeopardises the outcome of the battle.

In many texts we can see the benefits of the king being present on the battlefield. As long as he or a prince or an important general fights alongside us, we feel better and fight better, no?

[Morthoron]

Marky does have a point in regards to how the outcome of battles were predicated on the presence of personal leadership, even in wars up to the 15th century (rl history). The "cult of personality" was a very strong motivator, and the defection, death or capture of well-known warriors or princes could have a deleterious psychological effect on battle.

Therefore, with the sudden absence of Gandalf (who had in effect saved the scattered forces of Erkenbrand) in Gondor, and then the sudden departure of Aragorn and his grim Dunedain (who made the Rohirrim look like boys), along with mythical figures (to the Rohirrim anyway) such as the Elf Legolas and the Dwarf Gimli, it could have a decidedly negative effect on the Rohirrim. Tolkien didn't consider the implications most likely, and preferred to ignore this avenue of the plot.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Marky Lazer

But it isn't about what Aragorn believes, is it?

Beowulf believed he did the right thing going back years later to slay the dragon (but it didn't turn out so great, leaving an entire people kingless).

The people, the common soldiers who need to fight alongside Aragorn, see him walking off into the Paths of the Dead, to them that equals certain death. The morale of the troops would collapse, now that this fellow walks off and takes with him them two outlandish heroes as well that did so well in previous skirmishes. That's how he jeopardises the outcome of the battle.

In many texts we can see the benefits of the king being present on the battlefield. As long as he or a prince or an important general fights alongside us, we feel better and fight better, no?

Yes... but no...

Aragorn's departure certainly demoralised Éomer, but I don't think it had quite the same effect on the Rohirrim generally. For all that Aragorn was a hero (with Legolas and Gimli) at the Battle of Helm's Deep, besides the demoralising effect that *anyone* venturing down the Paths of the Dead would have, I don't think the Rohirrim looked to him for leadership that much. He was a hero and a bold figure, associated with their leaders... but he was not their leader.

That being said, if Théoden or Éomer had disappeared off down the Paths of the Dead, I doubt if the Rohirrim would have made it to Gondor... but they didn't. As for Aragorn, his own followers were the band that actually went with him down the Paths of the Dead... or else the people of Gondor who knew him not, and yet were saved by his actions. From a perspective of loyalty, Aragorn's first loyalty as a leader were to the Dúnedain, be they of Gondor or Arnor, and I think it's safe to say that even if the Rohirrim's will had broken (which it didn't, because Aragorn was not their leader) and they'd failed to march on Gondor, it was still more important that the Corsairs be routed by the dead. Granted, the Battle of the Pelennor may not have been as conclusive a victory if the City and the Men from southern Gondor had not been joined by the Rohirrim, but the city might well have been succoured.

The big problem then would have been that Gondor would not have had the army to march on Mordor, which was clearly essential to allowing Frodo to reach Mt. Doom... but perhaps, seeing Aragorn safe through the Paths of the Dead, the Rohirrim might have come into play. In any case, the immediate thing was that Minas Tirith and Gondor generally needed saving, and it could not have been done without the Dead, and Aragorn's loyalty was first to the Dúnedain.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Excellent point, Formy - Aragorn had a "cameo guest role" for the Rohirrim. Their morale in battle was certainly mainly dependent on their own king and his family as well as their leaders. When Théoden was killed in battle, Éomer took over without a hitch.

As Háma answered when Théoden asked: "In whom do my people trust?" - "In the House of Eorl."