Tolkien, Technology, and... War

[symestreem]

Tolkien's distrust of industry is well known (see Scouring of the Shire, Fellowship of the Ring if you don't know what I'm talking about). Reasons commonly given for this, and supported by the above chapter, include the corruption of nature. Is there another reason? Technology makes war easier and more impersonal; I imagine it's easier to drop a Tomahawk (or whatever missile) from an unmanned Predator than to cut someone's head off with a sword. In his books, Tolkien seems to portray war as a necessary evil (see ), but technology, as I said, makes war easier and more likely. Medieval monarchs had to think about raising an army and provisioning it. Now, weapons can kill an increasing number of people at one time, often without any risk to those who utliize them. Tolkien would have had a taste of this in WWI, with machine guns and poison gas. Technology also makes subjugation of one nation by another easier, if the other nation is a superpower. Both impersonal war and subjugation are themes Tolkien treats with dislike (although, curiously, he has no problems with Gondor's colonization of Harad after the War of the Ring); I believe all instances weapons of mass destruction in Middle-earth were utilized by the bad guys (ie dragons, siege, and the blasting fire of Orthanc), and it was the proud and corrupt Numenoreans who subjugated Middle-earth. Did Tolkien do this on purpose, or is easy war just another side effect of technology, like despolation of Nature?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There's a wonderful passage in The Hobbit that gives a comment about the Goblins and their love for technology and weapons. From it, we can assume that Tolkien connected technology with its negative destructive effects.

Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones... Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design.. It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them...

[mark12_30]

I think the Fell Beasts (and flying dragons as well) indicate Tolkien's dislike for Terror From The Air. Although the good side has eagles, the effects are quite different. I don't think he was fond of airplanes.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Also the idea of waste, such as the needless building of a bigger mill (at the expense of much of the natural landscape) in the Shire, when there was no need. This small event in the larger scheme took autonomy from the small and gave power to the outsider over the people themselves, thus echoing the rise of industry and the faceless conglomerates. There was also much senseless waste of human life in the Great War of attrition, when the generals' strategies were often, "throw as many men as possible at them and hope they run out before we do." The Germans attacks on Verdun were designed specifically to draw the hordes of French defenders to their doom in the defense of a national treasure. The Germans knew that the French would endure unthinkable human loss before they would give up Verdun. Senseless waves of young men dying in an impossible assault on Gallipoli before they realized how impossible it was...there was more human life lost through sheer waste in World War One than in any subsequent war, as far as my limited knowledge goes. I haven't read the "war-machines" version of the Fall of Gondolin, but I have read accounts of the Somme, and I imagine they would not be so different as one might think.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Kuruharan]

Technology makes war easier and more impersonal; I imagine it's easier to drop a Tomahawk (or whatever missile) from an unmanned Predator than to cut someone's head off with a sword. In his books, Tolkien seems to portray war as a necessary evil (see ), but technology, as I said, makes war easier and more likely.

While I agree with the general drift of your argument, at least as far as it pertains to Tolkein’s view of technology, I disagree with the idea that technology makes war any easier or more likely. Technology does not have anything to do with making human beings more or less violent. Our blood-spattered history seems to indicate that as a group we have a natural inclination to violence.

I also disagree that technology makes war essentially easier. It makes the process different, and it is certainly more destructive. However, it has its own kind of difficulty. I seriously doubt that you could get anybody who has actually had “their boots on the ground” to say that it was particularly easy for them. Even flying around in some planes can be just as physically demanding (in different ways) as running around hacking at somebody with a sword. Technology also creates layers of complexity and economic expense. In an economic sense I’d say that it is perhaps more burdensome for a modern nation to wage a real war than it was in the past.

One key difference between modern and (for lack of a better word) archaic warfare is its continual nature. Back in the good old days you’d set to for a day or so, or you’d settle in for a nice little siege. Once that was done then you’d likely have a little breather before continuing on to whatever was next. And then most everything stopped at the end of the campaigning season. Now, the war stops for no reason. It is fought under all conditions. In fact, it comes to resemble one long never-ending siege. This is on several levels more difficult and demanding than the good old days.

There was also much senseless waste of human life in the Great War of attrition, when the generals' strategies were often, "throw as many men as possible at them and hope they run out before we do." The Germans attacks on Verdun were designed specifically to draw the hordes of French defenders to their doom in the defense of a national treasure.

This type of thinking was not a peculiarity of the modern mind. It has always been some part of this kind of activity (and in spite of the stereotyping, it was not the only thing that the generals in World War I were thinking about).

Senseless waves of young men dying in an impossible assault on Gallipoli before they realized how impossible it was...

Not to be too picky (a sure sign that a picky comment is coming ) but Gallipoli is not the best example of this. If the thing had been better executed from the get go it might have turned out quite different. Even as it was the Turks were getting to the point of withdrawing. The project was an attempt at outside the box thinking by Churchill in an attempt to find a way around just throwing men at the enemy. He was trying to hit the enemy in their vulnerable underbelly. The commanders on the scene just sort of botched the thing from the beginning, and turned it into just throwing men at the enemy. If they had only managed the whole offensive as skillfully as they conducted the retreat…but anyway, I badly digress.

My essential point is that mere technology does not make humans more or less warlike. The problem has always lain with the human beings wielding the technology.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally posted by Kuruharan
I also disagree that technology makes war essentially easier. It makes the process different, and it is certainly more destructive. However, it has its own kind of difficulty.

I agree. I think the more appropriate thing to say is that technology in warfare causes more deaths in a shorter duration of time, as dropping a bomb can kill more people in a while than using swords and bows for a number of, say, hours (or probably even days). Efficiency, that would be the word.

[symestreem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

While I agree with the general drift of your argument, at least as far as it pertains to Tolkein’s view of technology, I disagree with the idea that technology makes war any easier or more likely. Technology does not have anything to do with making human beings more or less violent. Our blood-spattered history seems to indicate that as a group we have a natural inclination to violence.

Yes... I was referring to the 'ethics' of war'. Sitting in an air-conditioned office, pressing a button and hearing a computerized voice say 'Target destroyed' will give you a lot fewer nightmares than running a young boy through with a sword. Technology has the frightening potential to isolate you from the consequences of your actions, and that is something we never see in Tolkien's books. People always seem to pay the price or reap the rewards.