Gandalf, blood of hobbits on his hands?

[Elmo]

Did Gandalf know who Sharkie was?

If so, I reckon Gandalf shouldn't have so easily washed his hands of the hobbits before the Battle of Bywater. He could easily say it wasn't his problem anymore but Saruman was a maia and belonged to the same order as Gandalf. I say it was his problem to fix. He could have prevented the deaths of all the hobbits in that battle.

[Morthoron]

I believe Gandalf had an inkling there was trouble in the Shire (he had an uncanny presience, after all); however, I don't believe he was aware that Saruman was Sharky (or knew of the Sharky nick at all, for that matter). Nevertheless, 'The Scouring of the Shire' is one of the most crucial parts of LotR, because Tolkien basically wrote the quintessential 'coming of age' tale, and it was absolutely necessary for the Hobbits (Frodo, Samwise, Merry and Pippin) to solve the Hobbits' (as in the whole Shire's) problems by themselves, based on the experience they gained and travails they had to overcome throughout the book.

In essence, the Fellowship of the Ring (that is, the actual quest for the destruction of the Ring) was the training ground for these four Hobbits to gain the leadership skills necessary to overcome the danger they encountered upon their return to the Shire. Gandalf, had he even known about Saruman's presence, would most likely not have interferred with the Hobbits roles in leading the insurrection, as it is obvious he had an infinite amount of confidence in his Hobbit comrades and respect for their abilities.

It is also evident that Tolkien wrote 'The Scouring of the Shire' as an integral part of the story, with a particular emphasis on the growth of the Hobbit protagonists. They no longer needed the help of wizards or Dunedain Rangers to save their own, and this is one of the primary knocks I have against the Peter Jackson films. He missed the point entirely, it seems; or, rather, chose to glorify other lesser aspects of the story not in keeping with the author's intent.

[The Might]

This is something I personally also have had trouble with for a long time.

Of course coming of age, blah blah, but the point remains - Hobbits died. Now, Gandalf here is being extremely harsh by acting solely by the old ideal of the end justifies the means. And this is in my opinion not only a horrible ideal to live by, but also something totally unfitting for an emissary of the Valar. Of course the Hobbits should learn their lesson, they should become independent, but at that cost?

Now, one could argue that in M-e death was not that bad actually. It was the gift of death that Eru was making to Men, but still, did these Hobbits not have the right to enjoy their lives to the fullest before leaving Arda for some unknown place that only Eru knew of? And who was Gandalf to deny them that, for he, as already mentioned in the other posts, felt that something was wrong within the Shire.

The only way that Gandalf can come clean out of this whole event is to speculate that what he expected was a lot less than a ruffian takeover under Saruman and a bloody battle or that he expected the Hobbits to manage to solve the situation peacefully (why, I don't know after all they saw in the War of the Ring) and that it was the four companions who actually failed in that respect.

No, but in the end, I share the view that Gandalf knew that something was wrong in the Shire, and that he, knowing full well what the risks involved were, let the Hobbits handle things themselves. A terrible deed nonetheless, unless you come from the planet Qo'nos.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by The Might

Of course the Hobbits should learn their lesson, they should become independent, but at that cost?

I see two themes to this conversation. The first one is in the above quote, and I think some perspective is needed that one. Sure, some hobbits died during Sharkey's occupation and the Scouring, but the Shire suffered nothing compared to Gondor and Rohan.

Independence is a precious thing and objectively worth the lives of a few hobbits.

By comparison, the United States gained independence at the cost of 6188 wounded and 4435 dead. Were there grieving mothers? Certainly, but it was worth the price.

The second theme is that Gandalf should have done something to stop Sharkey/Saruman. That wasn't his mission, ergo it didn't have the blessing of the Valar. They sent Gandalf... twice... to oppose Sauron, and the Ring was destroyed by the time the hobbits returned to the Shire.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I want to think about this a little more, but there is another aspect to this situation that I think should be considered: the involvement of Hobbits in starting the trouble. If not for Hobbits like Lotho and Ted Sandyman, would the ruffians have gotten a foothold in Shire doings to begin with? Even before Saruman became directly involved -- indeed, even before Frodo left Bag End with the Ring -- there were Hobbits already interested in "improving" the Shire for their own benefit, and profit. Gandalf was not responsible for their attitudes and actions; even if he felt strongly about these things, all he could really do within the parameters of his mission would be to advise them against such courses of action. Saruman alone was not responsible for the ruin of the Shire; indeed, without the all too willing cooperation of corruptible Men and Hobbits, I doubt he would have succeeded quite so well.

Must think more. After I finish my Christmas dessert.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Might

Of course coming of age, blah blah, but the point remains - Hobbits died.

Yes, a few Hobbits died, blah, blah -- but not many (a grand total of 19!), and the ruffians certainly were more on the receiving end of this 'battle' (actually, more of a fist fight with some cudgels, knives and arrows thrown in). I think the problem here is that you are under the common assumption that Hobbits were children or child-like, and not adults of small stature. Gandalf did not view them as helpless creatures in need of super-heroic aid, because, for good or ill, the time of their naivety was well over. Gandalf was leaving, his time for warlike deeds ended with Sauron's destruction (as Inziladun and Andsigil capably pointed out).

One never sees the full measure of a man (or Hobbit) by continually acting as the cavalry; in fact, it merely weakens one's resolve to be independent. Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin had been molded under fire to achieve their victory over Sharky/Saruman. I would say this was both Gandalf and Tolkien's intention (although, again, I see no indication that Gandalf knew for certain that Saruman was anywhere near the Shire). By throwing Gandalf into the mix, you diminish the Hobbits' singular achievement, and you cast into doubt their ability, which was proven throughout the trilogy. Indeed, you lessen the significance of their role in the War of the Ring. I'll take 'The Scouring of the Shire' over 'Gandalf Rides to the Rescue' any day.

[Alfirin]

There is one other point to consider, If Gandalf did know, but didn't do anything it was, in a certain sense a rather cruel thing to do to Frodo. The events in the shire were in some ways, a final "stab" metaphorically at frodo, showing hin that nowhere, not even in the home he loved could he escape further tragedy and sorrow. I am sure that, to the end of his days, Frodo, gentle soul that he was, felt that what had happeded in the shire was more or less wholly his own fault, not so much because he left (hew would have realized that, had he stayed the whole world would have been lost) but becase he would feel that, had he not dallied for pleasant things (Aragon's coronation, his wedding to Arwen, seein bilbo, etc.) He might have made it to the shire before Saruman even got there, and stopped him before he did damage. Frod may have well though that the blood of the hoobist who had died was on his hands, not Gandalf's. And I am sure that though the majority of the hobbits agreed that Frodo had put thing as right as he could, a few less charitable souls undobtedly still beilved that Frodo was to blame. I can only reconcile this with the fact that Frodo is meant to be a true tragic hero and as a true tragic hero and pleasure, no matter how small must come at a cost so great as to make the pleasure seem too cotsly.

[The Might]

I think the whole problem here is that people are talking about this way too superficially and from a distance, as readers. I mean of course you can do that, who cares how many Hobbits died, they don't even exist! Oh, but they do, at least in our minds, so let's try for just one second to really picture this happening.

A grand total of 19? Here is a little question for you, Morthoron and all others supporting this view - would you, if needed, sacrifice 19 of the people you know, cherish and respect for the sake of common good?
If the answer is yes, than we seem to have very different views on this. If it is no, than it would mean to me at least that you should condemn Gandalf to a certain degree for not coming along to the Shire, but sitting down and enjoying a talk with Tom Bombadil.

Now, you say that this was no longer Gandalf's business, not his errand. But firstly, should we believe that all the goods that he had done previously were only done intentionatly in order to just stop Sauron? Would he not have acted in that way had it not served his purpose? I believe that as an innate good being Gandalf would have and should have helped others, no matter what his errand was. It's not like after the Ring was destroyed he should say, "I'm done here, bye!". Not very much his character.

Furthermore, I agree that the Hobbits had to grow to a new level, to be able to stand alone for themselves, if you read the post I made previously I do not believe I question that anywhere. The thing is, do you always need blood to flow in order to learn your lesson or to change something for the better?

Is there no other path that Gandalf could have lead the Hobbits on? I would like to believe there was a more peaceful way to solve the situation with the ruffians, some kind of passive resistance or maybe simply Gandalf as a charismatic leader showing the ruffians there was more to life than just ruling over others.

Accuse me of idealism if you wish to, but in a world plagued by wars with children, not men, children enrolled by both factions dying for "great ideals", no matter what these ideals are depending on the faction, I'd rather sit down and consider some alternatives, lest we destroy ourselves as a result of the pursuit of such ideals.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I believe Gandalf had an inkling there was trouble in the Shire (he had an uncanny presience, after all); however, I don't believe he was aware that Saruman was Sharky (or knew of the Sharky nick at all, for that matter). Nevertheless, 'The Scouring of the Shire' is one of the most crucial parts of LotR, because Tolkien basically wrote the quintessential 'coming of age' tale, and it was absolutely necessary for the Hobbits (Frodo, Samwise, Merry and Pippin) to solve the Hobbits' (as in the whole Shire's) problems by themselves, based on the experience they gained and travails they had to overcome throughout the book.

In essence, the Fellowship of the Ring (that is, the actual quest for the destruction of the Ring) was the training ground for these four Hobbits to gain the leadership skills necessary to overcome the danger they encountered upon their return to the Shire. Gandalf, had he even known about Saruman's presence, would most likely not have interferred with the Hobbits roles in leading the insurrection, as it is obvious he had an infinite amount of confidence in his Hobbit comrades and respect for their abilities.

It is also evident that Tolkien wrote 'The Scouring of the Shire' as an integral part of the story, with a particular emphasis on the growth of the Hobbit protagonists. They no longer needed the help of wizards or Dunedain Rangers to save their own, and this is one of the primary knocks I have against the Peter Jackson films. He missed the point entirely, it seems; or, rather, chose to glorify other lesser aspects of the story not in keeping with the author's intent.

For once you are actually make sense Morthoron! Couldn't have said it any better, there is hope for you yet.

Just like the French in 1944 when the Allies were marching on Paris. The 2nd French Armoured Division volunteered to take the primary role in the liberation against Paris, Why? Because the De Gaul believed that the french should have a role in taking back their country; the same thing can be applied to the Hobbits. How could they, as a nation under the rule of King Aragorn, be seen as a respectable province if they were dependent on a wizard for everything? Must Gandalf be blamed for everything that went wrong in the war?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

For once you are actually make sense Morthoron!

I always make sense, Groin. I believe in this instance you are merely having a lucid interlude.

[The Might]

There you are wrong, since I would not be considering diplomacy with Sauron, but with those supporting him, the Men of Khand and Harad and further into the east.

I believe they could have been reasoned with and brought on the good side.
Now you may argue that this was attempted and failed - with the Ithryn Luin setting off to the east and possibly having founded magic cults around themselves and with Gandalf having also went a bit further South (not that far) where he gained the name Incanus.

But I do not believe that all was done that could have been done. Gondor's insecurity of how to handle the southern neighbours and their seeming unwilligness to initiate any true diplomatic talks is what brought the Easterlings and the Southrons closer to Sauron.

First of all, we know they could be reasoned with, we see that after the war when peace is made with the people of the south and the east.

But unfortunately, we hear of no such attempts by kings like Romendacil or Hyarmendacil, they just conquer, but don't seem to try and win over the population.

I believe that had these people received better treatment, had Gondor invested more in helping these people they conquered, improving their lives for the better, then they would have been a lot more resistant to supporting Sauron.

Now, I will give you this, by the time of the War of the Ring it was probably already too late, this I accept, however it would not have been too late before earlier. So much for the War of the Ring.


You make a valid point that Sauron or Saruman lacked the conscience needed for such an action to work, I admit my lack of thinking deeper here, I did indeed miss that part.


And lastly, the part about my signature. It gets a bit personal there, but I won't complain, so the idea behind it is I am proudly showing that date, but not necessarily for the reason you think of, so don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. 1815 was the year when the Urburschenschaft was founded in Jena, a student organization which unlike previous ones had also political goals. Indeed they did pretty much dispise the French for their part in the war and were no big fans of Napoleon, as they had fought against him in the war as volunteers (at least many of them). But the special thing about them was that they also fought against the state order at that time, the old rooted outdated conservative structures which wanted to suppress the intelligent people in the state and get everything under the control of the nobility again with Metternich as the one leading the whole process. So they founded their organization with the motto "Honour, Freedom, Fatherland", but they were very, very liberal for that time. They were patriotic, but in a good way, not the jingoistic kind of patriotism they unfortunately later developed after 1870.

Now, the point is, it's a motto standing as a symbol for liberal ideology, for freedom. I see no contradiction between produly displaying it and in the same time looking for better (at least in my opinion) means to reach this freedom for all people. I see no problem in being proud of people that died to achieve something good in the past and trying to find new ways, again perhaps better ones to achieve something good in the present.

After all, should we not learn from history? Yes, you make a good point with Chamberlain, I agree upon that, but again looking further back in history, had England taken a more German-friendly position in the 20s and had made more pressure for an ease on reparation payments and had supported Germany's economy more, the whole Hitler episode would never had happened. Actually, England did that partially, and it almost worked. It was mostly just the Wall Stree Crash that nailed it for the Nazis. With the economy a bit stronger it all may have well worked out in the end.

So just saying "Oh, Neville was too nice and this caused all the war" is in my opinion wrong and way too one-sided. Looking back into history more in depth, one realises that had the British (and especially the French) been a bit nicer to Germany all could have probably been avoided.

Ok, sorry for the big off-topic part but I felt it was necessary to set things straigh from my point of view.


So, concluding with the Scouring of the Shire, I agree that you make a good, valid point there - Saruman had no conscience, but I doubt the ruffians had none. So it would have been very difficult indeed to manage anything without violence, but not impossible. Ruffians were not Orcs or trolls, they were men, bad men, but in the end still men and not some mental people. So the idea is that maybe one could have done things like Frodo did. If you look at the Battle of Bywater he seems to have had a position more like mine, whilst Sam would have been on your side. He refused to take part and to kill sentient beings for the common good and spent his time making sure no ruffian who gave up were killed by Hobbits.

Moving further, did the Scouring make Hobbits better? And mark the question, it's not did it make it better for the Hobbits, but made them better. I believe not. It took away their inocence, best example is the killing of Wormtongue. The exhausted and tormented Wormtongue kills his evil master and gets three arrows in his body in return from Hobbit archers before Frodo could intervene and stop them from killing him. Great way to end a war.

So yes, perhaps violence was the only way to make things better for the Hobbits, but it did exactly the opposite with their characters.


Btw, sorry for respoding after so much time, I was afk this whole time and only got the chance to type all this now.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by The Might

There you are wrong, since I would not be considering diplomacy with Sauron, but with those supporting him, the Men of Khand and Harad and further into the east.

I believe they could have been reasoned with and brought on the good side.
Now you may argue that this was attempted and failed - with the Ithryn Luin setting off to the east and possibly having founded magic cults around themselves and with Gandalf having also went a bit further South (not that far) where he gained the name Incanus.

But I do not believe that all was done that could have been done. Gondor's insecurity of how to handle the southern neighbours and their seeming unwilligness to initiate any true diplomatic talks is what brought the Easterlings and the Southrons closer to Sauron.

First of all, we know they could be reasoned with, we see that after the war when peace is made with the people of the south and the east.

But unfortunately, we hear of no such attempts by kings like Romendacil or Hyarmendacil, they just conquer, but don't seem to try and win over the population.

I believe that had these people received better treatment, had Gondor invested more in helping these people they conquered, improving their lives for the better, then they would have been a lot more resistant to supporting Sauron.

It's possible, I'll grant you. But I doubt it. As I mentioned before, Sauron proved that blockading him doesn't work. He only has to wait a few generations for the pitiful little mortals to die out and change their policies. That's assuming he hasn't patiently subverted them outright. Sure, Gondor could have befriended the men of Khand and Harad... for the time being. But what would happen after, say, 500 years, which is a meager amount of time to Sauron? Look at how many times over the last 200 years alliances and oppositions have changed in Europe between the UK, France, Spain, Germany (in its various incarnations), Russia, and Turkey. Every one of them has been both ally and enemy of the other at some point.

Sauron is immortal. And bent on conquering Middle Earth. And evil (Let's keep it at that. I'm not into moral relativism and I'm utterly unconcerned with what things look like from the points of view of Sauron or the various orc races). You can't blockade or defend against him forever, otherwise he finds a way around you. Eventually you have to take the offensive against him.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Might

There you are wrong, since I would not be considering diplomacy with Sauron, but with those supporting him, the Men of Khand and Harad and further into the east.

But I do not believe that all was done that could have been done. Gondor's insecurity of how to handle the southern neighbours and their seeming unwilligness to initiate any true diplomatic talks is what brought the Easterlings and the Southrons closer to Sauron.

Diplomacy on a scale you are referring to is a fairly new development in the history of Man, and therefore is not germane to the era of the War of the Ring (as is passive resistance -- an entirely alien process, to be sure). For instance, diplomacy was not as advanced in medieval Europe, where treaties basically boiled down to Kings marrying off sons and daughters in the hope of not being attacked. More often than not, this sort of intermarriage only caused genetic deficiencies and did not reduce war in the least. In the case of Middle-earth in the 3rd or 4th Age, we see intermarriage as the main interaction between kingdoms; therefore, he that wielded the greatest power in an area (and in Khand and Harad, that would be Sauron), had the greatest influence. There was also the coercive power of the One Ring to consider.

Originally Posted by The Might

First of all, we know they could be reasoned with, we see that after the war when peace is made with the people of the south and the east.

After the fall of Sauron, the orcs fled, but the Easterlings and Haradrim fought on to the last man. These were not reasonable folk. And Aragorn fought many battles further in the East in the 4th Age. Whatever nice things you'd like to say about Aragorn, he was first and foremost an emperor, conquering and subjugating people and extending the power of Gondor over an area further than any king previously. He may have been an enlightened emperor, but he was a conquering emperor nonetheless.

Originally Posted by The Might

Now, the point is, it's a motto standing as a symbol for liberal ideology, for freedom. I see no contradiction between produly displaying it and in the same time looking for better (at least in my opinion) means to reach this freedom for all people. I see no problem in being proud of people that died to achieve something good in the past and trying to find new ways, again perhaps better ones to achieve something good in the present.

I understand completely TM. Perhaps you should be as equally proud of the Hobbits, who fought and died for freedom in the same manner as your ancestors.

Originally Posted by The Might

After all, should we not learn from history? Yes, you make a good point with Chamberlain, I agree upon that, but again looking further back in history, had England taken a more German-friendly position in the 20s and had made more pressure for an ease on reparation payments and had supported Germany's economy more, the whole Hitler episode would never had happened. Actually, England did that partially, and it almost worked. It was mostly just the Wall Stree Crash that nailed it for the Nazis. With the economy a bit stronger it all may have well worked out in the end.

Actually, had the European allies listened to Woodrow Wilson, there might not have been a WWII. But the Treaty of Versailles after WWI was so spiteful and vengeful against the Germans, it almost guaranteed a second war. But, of course, so many millions died in WWI because of senseless German bellicosity under the megalomaniacal rule of Wilhelm and his woodenheaded generals, that I find it difficult to blame the French or English in wishing to punish the Germans.

Originally Posted by The Might

So just saying "Oh, Neville was too nice and this caused all the war" is in my opinion wrong and way too one-sided. Looking back into history more in depth, one realises that had the British (and especially the French) been a bit nicer to Germany all could have probably been avoided.

Neville Chamberlain can best be summed up in a frank appraisal by Winston Churchill: "In the depths of that dusty soul there is nothing but abject surrender."

Chamberlain underestimated or ignored the evil intent of Hitler time and time again. Czechoslovakia had a superb army and a great munitions supplier, Skoda, and were more than capable of battling the Nazis, but Chamberlain handed the country to Hitler without a fight, which also left Poland exposed in the process. Chamberlain's method of appeasement is the worst possible example of diplomacy in the modern era.

Originally Posted by The Might

Moving further, did the Scouring make Hobbits better? And mark the question, it's not did it make it better for the Hobbits, but made them better. I believe not. It took away their inocence, best example is the killing of Wormtongue. The exhausted and tormented Wormtongue kills his evil master and gets three arrows in his body in return from Hobbit archers before Frodo could intervene and stop them from killing him. Great way to end a war.

If you really follow the history of the Hobbits, they were a race doomed to obliteration eventually. The Battle of Bywater marked their high water point in history, and once the dynasty of Telcontar waned, it is certain Hobbitish fortune waned with it. In any case, you are confusing the point at which they lost their naivety. It was Saruman who stole their innocence, not the Hobbits rebelling against despotism and slavery. One might as well have asked Jews in a concentration camp to attempt diplomacy with Nazi guards. A fat lot of good that would have done.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

All right, I really like this thread and I pity that I don't have that much time to give to it, but for now I will add just a few rather sideway notes

Originally Posted by Gordis

Same with Castamir. Kill the guy in time and lots of lives would have been saved.

This is actually one thing about the history where I have to confront with the question "does one monarch really change the history that much?". Do you think it is all just because of Castamir in person? What, lots of lives. It was the nobility of Gondor itself which had some reservations with the king, had it been just about Castamir, he would not have succeeded. Later, they wanted already to get rid of him. But still, there were some who stood alongside him, and there would have been some who would have opposed the return of the king to his throne, even if Castamir was slain. Or maybe it won't be Castamir, but his deputy would have done the same and continued in his name had he died. The general idea is: it's not really the one king who makes the history. Of course, depending on how strong his personality is, he might have a strong impact on his era, but still, there is a certain "general pressure"... so, simply put, I believe that by killing one Castamir, you would not have prevented the war. The "anti-royalists" would have lost the legitimate background for their claims, but still, some tension would bubble at least in the cauldron, and such a Castamir could come in two or three generations again, or some people would just revolt against Gondor and form an "Umbar" on their own account, maybe electing some noblemen among themselves to lead them (I am sure there will be somebody well-suited for that, and some at least far relative of the king).

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

How could they, as a nation under the rule of King Aragorn, be seen as a respectable province if they were dependent on a wizard for everything?

And must the Hobbits be a respectable province? Why? They were always simple and peaceful people, and I agree on what Miggy said in his last post - I am actually not sure if this "making their stand in the world" was good for them. Okay, perhaps yes in the sense: they were prepared to face the "outside world", the era of Men... weird... sounds almost like something Saruman would have wanted... even though he is dead, his thought continues and grows... and he was actually wise, what he said, has really happened... the Old Times have passed, the new world arose... And perhaps the "old hobbits" would not have survived in the Fourth Age...

[Pitchwife]

Legate, I wonder whether you've read "Making History" by Stephen Fry. If not, you might enjoy it - it supports your argument about Castamir beautifully. It's about somebody going back in time to kill Hitler before he gained power (or even prevent him being born - I'm not sure about the details), but when he returns to the present he finds that one of Hitler's WWI buddies has taken the Fuehrer's place and made everything much worse - IIRC by actually winning WWII...

Back to Middle-earth. I'm not so sure about the Hobbits always having been a peaceful people. Didn't they send archers to help King Arvedui against Angmar? Didn't Bandobras Took invent golf by beheading an Orc leader in battle? They had proven their ability to defend themselves fighting before the Scouring, although they were somewhat out of practice and needed some stirring to remember.

If taking care of Saruman and his ruffians was anybody's responsibility apart from the Hobbits themselves, I'd say it was King Elessar's rather than Gandalf's - the Shire being a province of his Reunited Kingdom, etcetera. Isn't it a king's job to keep peace and order in his kingdom? Of course he couldn't be bothered at the time, being busy in Gondor, even if he'd known what was going on in the north, but I see Merry and Pippin sort of acting as his unappointed deputies in organizing the Hobbit resistance. ("You are speaking to a friend of the King" - either M or P to one of the ruffians; and Pip was wearing the livery of the Tower of the Guard, so it was probably him.)

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Back to Middle-earth. I'm not so sure about the Hobbits always having been a peaceful people. Didn't they send archers to help King Arvedui against Angmar? Didn't Bandobras Took invent golf by beheading an Orc leader in battle? They had proven their ability to defend themselves fighting before the Scouring, although they were somewhat out of practice and needed some stirring to remember.

Exactly, so if you look at it like that the hobbits were not abandoning their old peaceful principles to become better equipped for the age of men, they were just uncovering some old forgotten traits that were instinctively theirs. The four adventurers certainly had the stamina and courage in them to take on a quest as they did and Bilbo was chosen by Gandalf because of his Tookish heritage, as we all know the Tooks were a bit "queer" by hobbit standards. Besides I don't think the hobbits had much of a choice in the matter, it was fight for their survival or be made into serfs.

The hobbits as a culture had reached the point of "perfection." They no longer possessed the ability to create new and better things, or to do the great things of their ancestors, the only thing that they could do was talk about the great things that their forefathers did and to mimic the deeds as best they could. This attitude needed to change eventually, and as almost always it does, it took drastic circumstances for them to wake up.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Elmo

He could easily say it wasn't his problem anymore but Saruman was a maia and belonged to the same order as Gandalf. I say it was his problem to fix. He could have prevented the deaths of all the hobbits in that battle.

Gandalf's purpose was not to right all the evils of the world, but to do what he could to bring about Sauron's defeat. He was sent with that sole task before him, and once that was accomplished his time of action in ME was over.
Being of the same order as Saruman didn't mean the responsibility for vanquishing him lay with Gandalf. Gandalf's errand was finished: he knew the Hobbits were capable of dealing with the situation in the Shire themselves, but I don't believe he either would have or could have intervened even if the Hobbits had appeared to be failing.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Elmo

He could have prevented the deaths of all the hobbits in that battle.

My Tolkienish wit having become rusty with lack of practice, still let me try my hand at this.

So... (leaving aside all other considerations of Gandalf's 'calling' that 'ended' with the 'end' of Sauron and possible positive prohibition on assuming active role since that...) - that provided one considers death in battle of the few and 'rousing' of the rest to greater perception of the world within and without the Shire, with clearer perception of their own being/man(hobbit)hood and firmer handhold on their own lives and so on and so forth greater evil than leaving all them hobbits in slumber doing their job for them