Patriotism and the Lord of the Rings

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

I’m visiting Washington D.C. for inauguration and this has gotten me thinking about patriotism. And as I am wont to do, I’ve been thinking about Lord of the Rings as well. Naturally, this combination is what birthed this thread.

What sort of patriotism is there is the Lord of the Rings? Is it similar or different from patriotism in today’s world?

Think about the Shire. The Shire is comprised of different groups of families, many of whom hold grudges against one another and probably would not want to be associated with one another (see: Gamgees and Brandybucks). Because of this, can the Shire be defined as a country? It has no central government, but it has definitive borders. Its inhabitants are definitely what I would describe as “patriotic” (For the Shire!), but are they patriots only for their area of residence (i.e. Hobbiton)?

The only time they unite is under direct threat from an outside source (see: Saruman and Wormtongue). When Saruman was defeated, do you think that the hobbits became more unified? (It doesn’t seem to me that hobbits unite by race, only because the hobbits of Bree did not come to the aid of the Shire-hobbits in the Scouring). What does this mean in the real world? How is the response of hobbits when under threat from a foreign enemy different or similar to the response of Americans after 9/11 or Palestinians today?

And then there’s Gondor. Gondor is easier to define using real world terms because their government is defined in a more familiar way. I would define Gondorians as patriotic, because we can see in many arenas how they are willing to die for their country (Boromir, Faramir etc.). How do the people of Gondor show their patriotism under the rule of Denethor versus the rule of Aragorn?

And yadayada… what do you guys think about other cultures? What about the Elves (Rivendell, Lothlorien, Noldor even?) What about the Rohirrim (or Rohanites as Lush would say…)? How come they didn’t overthrow Theoden, even though he was poisoned by Saruman? What does Tolkien’s portrait of the affairs in Middle- Earth say about his views on patriotism as a whole? And then maybe you think this is all a load of something from the back-end of Shadowfax, so tell me that too…

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

To me, since it seems that patriotism is most commonly defined as love of or devotion to country, the kind of patriotism one sees in LotR would depend on how the inhabitants view the land in which they live. Gondor and Rohan appear to have a very clear view of their lands as sovereign nations, and one does see overt love of country shown among their peoples (Boromir, Faramir, and Theoden come most strongly to my mind). The Hobbits seem to have a looser sense of the Shire as a nation, but their love of their land does become evident when their backs are pushed to the wall by the ruffians (a splendid example, I think, of Gandalf's assertion that Hobbits are "brave in a pinch," a situation they try very hard to avoid). 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.

Something to think about....

[Morthoron]

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.

Very perceptive, Ibrin.

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.

Tolkien tracks migrations of clans throughout Middle-earth's history: The Eldar from Cuivienen to Aman, the Noldor back to Arda, 1st Age Men from the East, Numenoreons to Gondor and Harad, the Eotheod from Rhovanion to Rohan, the Wainriders and Balchoth from Rhun or Hildor, Hobbits from the Vale of Anduin to the Angle, to the Shire, etc. In nearly every case, the customs and the very nature of the migratory clans were preserved in the lands they conquered or settled, and the patriotism is far less national and more allied to the clan. Gondorions still relive their illustrious Numenorean past, The Rohirrim have progressed very little from their Northmen antecedents, and the Hobbits are clannish in the extreme.

[Lalwendë]

Some great food for thought here!

Originally Posted by Ibrin

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,

This makes great sense - if you have endless life then there is less 'need' for other kinds of immortality, yet mortals can only achieve anything like immortality by living on in the memory of their descendants. Thus things like passing on their property and land become important (as does having 'sons and heirs', thinking of Henry VIII, or maybe living on through doing great and memorable deeds....or in the modern age, just having a nice body and Max Clifford as your PR guru ). That could be one root of patriotism in Middle-earth and in the real world. I'd never thought of that.

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?

Another thought springs to mind about Hobbits. Their sense of loyalty is much quieter and yet they can be stirred into making a big show of their feelings. Very like the British who believe it or not generally do not like a lot of flag waving and find it ostentatious and mutter about 'jingoism' and the like - sometimes this is put down to the appropriation of the national flag and other symbols by the far right (Billy Bragg wrote about this idea) but it's also down to feeling simply embarrassed However, if the occasion warrants it, the flags and the pitchforks are brought out with gusto!

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

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 suspect that fear (stirred up by Saruman and his allies) gave the common residents of Rohan more immediate concerns than the mental and physical condition of their king (beyond, I imagine, grumbling over why the king was doing nothing to defend them). I do agree with both you and Morthoron; there is a definite sense that even the more developed "nations" of Middle-earth are fairly "primitive," when compared to more developed nations we know today (or even several hundred years ago). But there are definite signs that both Gondor and Rohan have laid claim to their lands and are determined to hold and protect them (Rohan to a lesser degree, being the newer of the two countries). They are cultivating and making use of the resources of their lands in ways that indicate a desire to remain there permanently, not merely as long as the resources hold out. Both have built strongholds, developed forms of military forces, and have plans to deal with the protection and evacuation of their citizens in time of war. No doubt there are other things I'm forgetting. It's too bad that we don't see more of the attitudes of the common folk of these lands, since one can argue that what appears to be "patriotism" in the ruling class may be more of a desire to hold land for reasons of power. Although I think that in Faramir's case, there is a distinct love of his country involved, a desire to protect his people not for glory or duty or even the approval of his father, but because he loves his land, both in its history and in what future it may yet have.

One does wonder about the Dwarves, though...

[Guinevere]

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."

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

Haldir tells the fellowship that they "live now upon an island amid many perils" and that he fears that if "the Shadow will draw back"

for the Elves it will prove at best a truce, in which they may pass to the Sea unhindered and leave the Middle-earth forever. Alas for Lothlorien that I love! it would be a poor life in a land where no mallorn grew.

and Galadriel tells Frodo:

The love of the Elves for their land and their works is deeper than the deeps of the Sea, and their regret is undying and cannot ever be wholly assuaged. Yet they will cast all away rather than submit to Sauron.

As for the Dwarves, their patriotism seems more allied to the clans. Nevertheless, they have a love for their ancient homes, like the Lonely Mountain, and Khazad-dûm, and try to win them back again even after a long time. The Blue Mountains where they earn their living in the meantime aren't really consideredy their country.

[Groin Redbeard]

You touched on something in your first post, AOR, which I think deserves more attention than it is getting: one's ancestors. Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and even Humans put great stock on their ancestors. For example, when people meet, their house, or a great ancestor comes into play. Take, for example, the simple meeting between Frodo and Gildor. Frodo was a simple Hobbit and would not have known any of the great figures of Elven history, as Gildor probably knew, yet Gildor introduced himself as being a par of the house of Finrod.

[QUOTE=Three is Company]'I am Gildor,' Answered their leader, the Elf who had first hailed him. 'Gildor Inglorion of the house of Finrod.'] Similar happenings like this are common in the books. Tolkien seems to put great emphasis on the heritage of ancestors and ten to one, I think, that people take greater pride in the family than in country. Love of country is much stronger with Men than any other race.

The Dwarves, as well as the Elves divided themselves by their houses: the Broadbeams of Belegost, the Firebeards of Nogrod, the Longbeards of Khazad-dum, ext. Yet family just doesn't seem to cut it for the Dwarves. Born at the Lonely Mountain at the height of its glory, Thorin was just 24 years old when his people were driven into exile by the dragon Smaug. He fled with his father Thráin II and his grandfather King Thrór, but his grandfather was devastated by the loss and left his people, wandering south with a single companion, Nár. Thráin meanwhile led the exiles to Dunland, where they eeked out a meager living. The colony moving to Dunland, instead of moving in with their relatives in the Iron Hills or the Blue Hills, shows that rugged individualism that many people find appealing for the Dwarves. A will to make it on their own, or not make it at all and (just like Hobbits) are able to come to one another's aid in a crisis [such as the War Between Orcs and Dwarves].

Without their home in the Lonely Mountains, however, those Dwarves seem to dwindle until Thorin reclaims it for them once again. The Dwarves are loathed to depart with anything that is there's, so yes land (or more precisely: their realms) would be a major contribution to their patriotism. We see this with Balin's premature attempt to retake Khazad-dum.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Gondor and Rohan appear to have a very clear view of their lands as sovereign nations, and one does see overt love of country shown among their peoples (Boromir, Faramir, and Theoden come most strongly to my mind). The Hobbits seem to have a looser sense of the Shire as a nation, but their love of their land does become evident when their backs are pushed to the wall by the ruffians (a splendid example, I think, of Gandalf's assertion that Hobbits are "brave in a pinch," a situation they try very hard to avoid).)

Hobbits may be "brave in a pinch" but they are rarely in a pinch. Except for a few highlights in their history, Hobbits are a peaceful people protected by greater kingdoms, or the descendants of that kingdom: Dunedein. Gondor, and Rohan to a lesser extent, went to war far more, protecting their sovereignty from invading Haradrim, Easterlings, Orcs, and Corsairs. Therefore, I think we can forgive individuals like Boromir for his actions, his was an act of desperation and despair not patriotism. I am confused, however, why you included Faramir in your examples of overt patriotism.

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).

Love what you are saying Ibri. Nice job.

[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?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

To veer back to the original topic for a moment... Finally got my computer and my book in the same place at the same time.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

I am confused, however, why you included Faramir in your examples of overt patriotism.

Largely because of one statement:

"For myself," said Faramir, "I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Numenor, and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise."

This is in distinct contrast to what he says earlier about his brother Boromir, that he was "proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein)." Faramir does not speak of his own glory, but of his love of what he is defending, its present as well as its past -- and possibly he does not speak of its future because that is so plainly hanging in the balance in what appears to be a hopeless situation. But to me, these are some of the most patriotic words spoken in LotR, about the soldier's love for the land which he is fighting to save.

[Kent2010]

I think Patriotism is more than love and willingness to fight for the land. It's an 'us' and 'them' question that William mentioned.

Once a nation has been established the problem facing that place is what's our identity? Or in the words of Bismark...'We have created Germany, now it's time to create Germans.' Should Germany include Austria? Catholics? Those are the types of questions facing any nation.

It was the same in the US, this is the Constitution of the United States of America, but what does it mean to be an American? Geography became one of the most important subjects of study, because it named things, it identified places. Maps were rampant. Land surveying was a popular profession.

I'm not well versed in LOTR, but will ask a couple things and maybe something useful to add. What is the importance of maps in Middle-earth? Is it something to identify places, and within what are the people like? Why do people want to avoid Lorien and Fangorn?

And The Hobbits, they might have a loose conception of The Shire as a 'nation,' but there is a distrust for outsiders and there even is an 'us' and 'them' identity from within....'There's something queer about that Bilbo, he's not like us - oh and those Bucklanders are odd too.'

I think patriotism implies both, a sense of land, but also an identity. What does it mean to be a Gondorian? Denethor loved Boromir more than Faramir, but why? Was it because Faramir didn't represent Denethor's image of a 'Gondorian'?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not well versed in LOTR, but will ask a couple things and maybe something useful to add. What is the importance of maps in Middle-earth? Is it something to identify places, and within what are the people like? Why do people want to avoid Lorien and Fangorn?

Well, going back to the First Age at least, the feeling is definitely rather more tribal than geographical- we see, for example the Noldor and Sindar placing loyalty in their own kings, even when they were geographically mingled (as with the Sindar of Hithlum, who considered themselves Thingol's subjects). The exception was Gondolin, but then Gondolin was unique in its total isolation. And with Men, the Houses of Hador and Beor accepted 'vassalage' to Elf-kings on a quasi-feudal pattern, but the Haladin remained independent though residing in territory which was nominally Elvish; and the Green-Elves were never considered to have fallen under Thingol's rule simply because they crossed the mountains into Beleriand.


A lot of this was I think Tolkien's oft-expressed dislike of homogenization. It was important to him that the Rohirrim live under their own laws notwithstanding Gondor's semi-suzerainity; and Gimli's folk at Aglaraond were an independent people under the 'protection' of the Crown. Similary the Shire was *not* placed under direct Arnorian rule, except for the basic obligations to "speed the King's messengers" and keep the Bridge in repair.

[Rumil]

Nice to see use of huge tracts of land and oppressed masses in the same thread

I like the ideas above that -

Settled men and hobbits identified with 'their' land

Nomadic men (and hobbits?) identified with their tribe

Dwarves identified with what they or their ancestors had made (Moria, Jewellery etc)

Elves identified with their leaders (which given their longevity in absence of nasty accidents covers land and tribe too in some ways)

Caveats I suppose are the low population density of Middle Earth, and likely insularity of most inhabitants, after all Sam had never been more than 20 miles from home and might have considered Buckland 'foreign' let alone Bree.

In todays world its strange to think how Dark Age kingdoms could be less than 50 miles wide, and that even comparatively recently there were great differences between counties (eg Cornwall and Devon; Yorks and Lancs) let alone countries.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Nice to see use of huge tracts of land and oppressed masses in the same thread

Yeah... the screenplay to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Lush]

I see the "Rohanites" are now famous! I think that if I ever run away, I'll start a band called Lush & the Rohanites. Weird electro-pop. For children.

Anyhoo,

What does Tolkien’s portrait of the affairs in Middle- Earth say about his views on patriotism as a whole

I've always appreciated Tolkien's nuanced portrayal of patriotism with regard to Faramir and Boromir. When Faramir rejects the Ring - it can, in one sense, be seen as highly unpatriotic:

"But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo." - The Two Towers.

(Let me know if that quote is off, btw, I still have not been reunited with my books, and am relying on Wiki)

But Boromir had already taught us, at that point, that patriotism can be meaningless, if not downright destructive, if you lose perspective. Faramir is able, to use a very over-used phrase - "think outside the box." There's something about the nature of the Ring that Faramir knows he can't afford to overlook, and that, perhaps, is true patriotism - thinking beyond the norm when you are called to do so.