Tension between Rohan and Gondor in the fourth age

[Rhun charioteer]

In the long history of the free people's there seemed to be not much in the way of tension between Gondor and Rohan. Except for the rohirrim' ancestors fighting in the kinstrife(correct me if I'm wrong on this).

In the fourth age after Eldarion and Eomer-could there be tension between Gondor and Rohan? If not necessarily war.

What sort of fault lines might exist between the allies especially as time went by and the elves and dwarves faded and memory of the alliance against Sauron and his allies faded?

[Boromir88]

I don't foresee any wars between Rohan and Gondor, let alone any sort of rifts or tension. At least, not between Eldarion and Eomer, and not in the Fourth Age.

Rohan exists because of Gondor, what I mean is, the lands that would become Rohan was a territory under Gondor's control. When Eorl came to Gondor's aid in the TA 2510, the steward Cirion granted the lands to Eorl and the Rohirrim. Eorl and Cirion made an oath, that in return for Eorl coming to Gondor's aid and promise of lasting friendship that Rohan's enemies would be Gondor's enemies, Cirion granted them Calenardon and their sovereignty.

There's debate that since Cirion was a Steward could Aragorn reclaiming the Kingship of Gondor undo the oath between Cirion and Eorl? Why Aragorn would want to I don't know, but it doesn't matter because he didn't undo the oath. So for one side to break faith with their part of the oath (say King of Rohan siding with Gondor's enemies and taking up arms against Gondor, or the King of Gondor reclaiming the lands of Rohan and absorbing Rohan back into its empire) would be a terrible crime, and probably the worst thing they could do.

[Zigûr]

The idea seems not wholly inconsistent with Professor Tolkien's view of the declining moral fibre of Men as the Fourth Age wore on, although in connection with Boromir88's post I think it would only be likely in a time when the events of the War of the Ring and so on had begun to pass into truly ancient history. Nonetheless I can imagine Gondor and Rohan becoming fractious with each other, perhaps even because of the Oath of Eorl and the gifting of Calenardhon. I could imagine those becoming a source of resentment on one side or another in time, when the memory of the honour and dignity of the friendship between the two kingdoms had been forgotten.

The Oath refers particularly to the mutual friendship between the kingdoms against "the Shadow in the East" and "the Shadow" in general; I can imagine in time arguments being raised as the realms became more 'political' that, with the defeat of the Dark Lord, the Oath no longer carried the same weight.

It's a depressing concept to imagine, but unfortunately I don't think it would necessarily be out of place thematically

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

The Oath refers particularly to the mutual friendship between the kingdoms against "the Shadow in the East" and "the Shadow" in general; I can imagine in time arguments being raised as the realms became more 'political' that, with the defeat of the Dark Lord, the Oath no longer carried the same weight.

Both realms, though, had an incentive to remain friends beyond what may serve their respective peoples at a given moment.

The Oath, as voiced by Eorl, ends by saying:

'This vow shall descend to my heirs, all such as may come after me in our new land, and let them keep it in faith unbroken, lest the Shadow fall upon them and they become accursed.'

As Zigûr noted, if the Shadow refers to Sauron only, then it's possible to interpret the Oath as being void after his fall. However, a footnote in the Unfinished Tales chapter Cirion and Eorl mentions that the Oath was renewed by Aragon and Éomer in the same hallowed place on Amon Anwar. Aragorn is said to have named Eru in witness to the Oath, which would then not have mentioned Sauron in particular.

I think the two realms would have kept that in mind, and as long as they existed as states as they were at the time of the Oath, would have remained faithful.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

The Oath refers particularly to the mutual friendship between the kingdoms against "the Shadow in the East" and "the Shadow" in general; I can imagine in time arguments being raised as the realms became more 'political' that, with the defeat of the Dark Lord, the Oath no longer carried the same weight.

I disagree, I think the oath refers to any threat, not just specifically Sauron and an oath of eternal friendship:

Hear now all peoples who bow not to the Shadow of the East, by the gift of the Lord of the Mundberg we will come to dwell in the land that he names Calenardhon, and therefor I vow my own name and on behalf of the Eotheod of the North that between us and the Great People of the West there shall be friendship for ever: their enemies shall be our enemies, and their need shall be our need, and whatever evil, or threat, or assault may come upon them we will aid them to the utmost end of our strength. This vow shall descend to my heirs, all such as may come after me in our new land, and let them keep it in faith unbroken, lest the Shadow fall upon them and they become accursed.~Unfinished Tales; Cirion and Eorl

"for ever" and "whatever evil, or threat, or assault" I believe means more than their current threats from "the Shadow of the East."

I do agree here:

The idea seems not wholly inconsistent with Professor Tolkien's view of the declining moral fibre of Men as the Fourth Age wore on~Zigur

"Sworn oaths" lose their significance over time. They don't mean anything, because as you expertly put it Tolkien's view about "declining moral fibre."

I just don't see rifts/tensions/war between Rohan or Gondor occurring during Eomer and Eldarion's time, or Eldarion's and Elfwine's. It won't come until the point where Men's moral decline has fallen and sworn oaths mean nothing to Men. Such a time in unforeseeable, at least unforeseeable to happen during Eomer and Eldarion's time.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I disagree, I think the oath refers to any threat, not just specifically Sauron and an oath of eternal friendship:

I don't mean that I think it refers specifically to Sauron. I don't think that. I mean that in later years Men might argue that it referred specifically to Sauron to try to negate its importance.

I just don't see rifts/tensions/war between Rohan or Gondor occurring during Eomer and Eldarion's time, or Eldarion's and Elfwine's. It won't come until the point where Men's moral decline has fallen and sworn oaths mean nothing to Men. Such a time in unforeseeable, at least unforeseeable to happen during Eomer and Eldarion's time.

This what I was trying to say; I think it would take multiple generations, as the wisdom of Men failed.

[Snowdog]

I see the Rohan/Gondor alliance/relationship similar to the Canada/U.S. one. A vast mostly undefended border and mutual interests. That said, if say Gondor get King Trumptamir, you could get the whole racial hatred thing going again ala Kin Strife.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

"Sworn oaths" lose their significance over time. They don't mean anything, because as you expertly put it Tolkien's view about "declining moral fibre."

I just don't see rifts/tensions/war between Rohan or Gondor occurring during Eomer and Eldarion's time, or Eldarion's and Elfwine's. It won't come until the point where Men's moral decline has fallen and sworn oaths mean nothing to Men. Such a time in unforeseeable, at least unforeseeable to happen during Eomer and Eldarion's time.

I would have to disagree with the opening here: one of the themes of Tolkien is that sworn oaths have incredible power, acting almost as agents in their own right. The Oath of Fëanor is arguably the driver for the whole of the Beleriand segment of the Legendarium; when it reawakens and comes into direct conflict with the oath of Finrod to Barahir, it leads to the death of King Felagund, the rescue of a Silmaril, the founding of the line of the half-elven, and - arguably - the falls of Doriath and Nargothrond. Even in extremis, the sons of Fëanor were completely incapable of breaking it - any more than Finrod could break his own oath, even though it led to his death. As Finrod himself says: "The Oath of Fëanor is again at work. For the Silmarils are cursed with an oath of hatred, and he that even names them in desire moves a great power from slumber."

Similarly, the oath of the Dead Men of Dunharrow was broken at first, and they were cursed to three thousand years of undeath for it. Given that Isildur isn't exactly noted for his magical powers, you could easily make a case for it being the oath itself that held them in the mountains.

Húrin (and Huor) swore an oath to Turgon never to reveal the secrets of Gondolin, and he kept it - not only from his wife, who he could trust implicitly not to tell, but also from Morgoth himself! The swearing of an oath is treated throughout the Silmarillion as utterly ironclad: Lúthien was happy to bring Beren to her father on the basis of an oath not to harm him, and Beren describes his hunt for the Silmaril as an oath (which he keeps even though literally everyone tells him how stupid he's being).

The Oath of Cirion and Eorl - the one under discussion here - was held to for five hundred years, and there is no hint (in the books, rather than the movies) of anyone even considering breaking it. "Say to Denethor that even if Rohan itself felt no peril, still we would come to his aid!" In our world, mortal men are capable of breaking their oaths all the time, absolutely - but in Tolkien's world, an oath is far more powerful, and indeed tangible, than it is in ours. To reach a point where the kings of Gondor and Rohan would consider breaking their Oath would mean transforming Middle-earth into a place where history and nobility mean nothing - which, while 'realistic', would be (I argue) a complete change from the world Tolkien created.

hS

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The Oath of Cirion and Eorl - the one under discussion here - was held to for five hundred years, and there is no hint (in the books, rather than the movies) of anyone even considering breaking it. "Say to Denethor that even if Rohan itself felt no peril, still we would come to his aid!" In our world, mortal men are capable of breaking their oaths all the time, absolutely - but in Tolkien's world, an oath is far more powerful, and indeed tangible, than it is in ours. To reach a point where the kings of Gondor and Rohan would consider breaking their Oath would mean transforming Middle-earth into a place where history and nobility mean nothing - which, while 'realistic', would be (I argue) a complete change from the world Tolkien created.

Certainly, the Old World Middle-earth canon of oaths and the dire consequences of oath-breaking were manifest throughout the first three Ages of Arda -- words have great potency and a power unto themselves; however, with the coming of the 4th Age Tolkien implies that Middle-earth is, for all intents and purposes, our world.

Therefore, although the grandeur and might of the kingship in Gondor may wane slowly, almost imperceptibly, through the first couple hundred years of the 4th Age, the decline would be inexorable if not precipitous at a certain point. We are now dealing solely with mortal empires unaided (or unhindered, as the case may be) by immortal agents of benevolence or evil. We are now simply men (and women), with all the virtues and vices this race is prone to having.

In The New Shadow, Tolkien himself speak of Sauron/Morgoth worship in the guise of a "Dark Tree" cult led by Herumor during the reign of Eldarion. So, we are speaking of a decline in moral fibre during the son of Elessar's reign, only a hundred years after the War of the Ring. As Tolkien states:

"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men, it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse."

Unfortunately, the thought of oaths manifesting the sort of magical power they held in previous Ages no longer applies. In the 4th Age, an oath is only as good or bad as the individuals who profess it. We have come to an era where treaties are temporary, oaths are broken, and promises are as fickle as a vagrant breeze.