Aragorn's political skills.

[Boromir88]

Does it take more then a "right" to the throne to actually take the throne? What I mean is, in politics, a key is the support of the people. And how do you get that support, through your battle experience. For example the successful General Earnil II, or even the Rohan Marshal Eomer.

Aragorn had the proof he needed to take the throne, but does it take more then that? And does Aragorn know this, which is why he so strategically places when it's right to "claim the throne?"

We get to see in Arvedui's experience that it does take more then proof to take the throne. He clearly had the evidence it took to claim the throne, but the Council of Gondor denied him. In comes the Stewards, was there a bit of pressure from the stewards? And the reason Arvedui wasn't able to take the throne was because the lack of support from the people.

Let's look at Aragorn's case, it starts out similar to that of Arvedui's. He joins the Fellowship, to head to Minas Tirith with Boromir. He feels that the visions he saw ment it was his time to go to Gondor and claim the throne.

Now in one of Tolkien's earlier drafts, Boromir doesn't die, and he goes to Minas Tirith with Aragorn. Aragorn takes claim to the throne, Boromir objects, and starts brewing a Civil War. Aragorn then kills Boromir. Tolkien threw out this idea, but there could be some importance.

I would tell you what "Aragorn's political skills" did to help him become king without any resistance, but I want to hear some more ideas, then I will get to mine. So have at it....hopefully. Was it Aragorn's political skills that truly helped him become king? More so then his "right" to the throne?

[Nimrodel_9]

Aragorn then kills Boromir.

Nooooooo!!!

I think it was kind of both. He had a right to the throne, and unless the people "attack" him and throw him out, they can`t really stop him from becoming king.

Few people in Gondor know Aragorn, and so they don`t know what kind of leader he is. I believe that when he led them to the Black Gate, they saw that he was useful in war. Other than that they don`t really know much about him, and just have to trust that he will be a good political leader.

I`m having trouble wording. Hope that made sense.

[Boromir88]

I`m having trouble wording. Hope that made sense.

Course it did .

Few people in Gondor know Aragorn, and so they don`t know what kind of leader he is. I believe that when he led them to the Black Gate, they saw that he was useful in war.

I definately would agree, The Black Gate victory got Aragorn the support he needed. Showed everyone he was a capable leader and fighter. Which I ask, do you have to be a "successful" warrior to hold high political office? Boromir was High Warden of the White Tower (I love that fancy title), Elrond and Galadriel have already shown their capabilities...etc.

I think another fancy move by Aragorn was when Imrahil asked for him to enter the city and claim the throne, he did not, he camped outside.

[obloquy]

Haha, hilarious avatar, Nimrodel. Nice.

[Nimrodel_9]

I think another fancy move by Aragorn was when Imrahil asked for him to enter the city and claim the throne, he did not, he camped outside.

I completely agree. Loves my Arry...

Thanks obloquy! I also loves Dom.

[Lush]

The thing about Aragorn is, he is capable of practicing patience and restraint just as well as he is capable of kicking butt. Aragorn is subtle, which is the hallmark of any great politician. Some might even say that his initial refusal to claim the throne following Imrahil's request is a nice bit of manipulation on his part. He doesn't want to seem as though he is taking the throne away from anyone, thus creating ill will. He doesn't want to impose. He's the good guy, wisely biding his time.

[the phantom]

Was it Aragorn's political skills that truly helped him become king?

Well, lemme see here.... how did old Strider win the support of the people of Gondor?

Aragorn served under Denethor's pop as Thorongil, right? Wasn't he loved by both the steward and the people at that time?

I wonder how many people supported Aragorn because he was Thorongil, who was supported by their parents or grandparents?

Or did anyone even know this?

And he also healed people, including Faramir (who everyone seemed to love). That earns some support.

Plus he had the friendship of Gondor's greatest ally, Rohan (or more specifically, Eomer).

And he rescued Minas Tirith from Sauron's forces. That couldn't have hurt people's opinion of him.

He was also supported by the Prince of Dol Amroth. Sort of like when a candidate gets an endorsement.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Which I ask, do you have to be a "successful" warrior to hold high political office?

I don't know if it is that simple. If a leader has triumphed through combat, he is showing his people that he will not only put his life on the line for the good of the many, but that he will do it and live. That's a nice thing to look for in a leader.

BUT, here's what just came to me. Aragorn's leadership versus Denathor's. Although Denathor *could* fight, and no doubt kick some serious behind, he chose not to. As he put it:

[Sauron] will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling. Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons?

I won't dispute that Denathor was a good leader, but he's not particularly "the people's leader". He uses his people as weapons, without ever putting himself in the same amount of danger.

One of the Gondorians' first visions of Aragorn is like everyone else has said: He personally led his people to The Black Gate; straight to the doors of the enemy, with the thought (or at least appearance) that if everyone was going to die to save Gondor (yes, and the world), that it was his place to die with them, fighting to protect them.

Are a group of people more likely to follow a good leader (with proper claim) who is willing to let them die, or to follow a good leader (also with proper claim), who is more likely to go out and fight right next to them?

Fea

[the phantom]

Are a group of people more likely to follow a good leader (with proper claim) who is willing to let them die, or to follow a good leader (also with proper claim), who is more likely to go out and fight right next to them?

I don't know. The King can do as he pleases, but if I had a King that I really loved then I would prefer that he stay behind the lines. I'd tell him "Let me go in place of you. If I die you lose one soldier, if you die we all lose our King."

Though I guess a King that stays back doesn't fill the part of a romantic hero- the way fantasy Kings are supposed to be.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

The King can do as he pleases

And the people can guillotine him. Maybe nothing so melodramatic, but if a king is annoying the people, they can exact revenge in any number of ways, regardless of station. Even the lowliest can torch something, costing the king money, or at least a few random worried thoughts.

but if I had a King that I really loved

Point taken, tossed around in my head, and left to mold. I see what you mean.

Fea

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Though I guess a King that stays back doesn't fill the part of a romantic hero- the way fantasy Kings are supposed to be.

Tolkien certainly espouses the heroic ideal of great leaders "leading from the front" and fighting side by side with their people. We can see this not only in central characters such as Aragorn and Theoden (in contrast, as has been pointed out, with Denethor), but also in the likes of Gil-Galad, Elendil, Thranduil, Celeborn, Dain II and Brand. There is a similar contrast, in The Hobbit, between Bard (the true Lord of Dale) and the Master of Laketown.

But, as the phantom and others have said, there is much more to Aragorn's acceptance by the people of Gondor than his military skills.

[Boromir88]

I would agree with the phantom in that it was much more then Aragorn's military skills. I think it's just the way he brought himself about and as already mentioned how he was endorsed by some pretty noble people (Imrahil, Rohan, and Faramir).

I think what really shines is how Aragorn deals with when is the time he should come fourth and take claim, he handles the political side well.

First, he's a servant under the current Steward Ecthelion, but he passes up on this oppurtunity, and Denethor takes command. 2nd oppurtunity is at Amon Hen, when he can choose to go to Minas Tirith with Boromir. Again, he passes up on this oppurtunity. Third chance, is when Imrahil offers it to him, but he declines.

I think the timing (which shows Aragorn's political knowledge) is what got him respected. I think his military record gets him the support, the final edge he needed, seeing that he was a victorious leader of men.

Though I guess a King that stays back doesn't fill the part of a romantic hero- the way fantasy Kings are supposed to be.

Very true. I don't know how other people feel, but I definately admire the leaders who fight on the front lines more so then the ones who sit back in the tents. Some modern heros that I admire were probably General Patton and Coronel Moore, both men were known for fighting with their men.

Here's Denethor's case. Him and Gandalf are total opposites, we can say they despise eachother, however, they are able to respect eachother. Without one of them who knows the outcome of the Siege of Gondor. Denethor brings the military planning/strategy to the table. He sets up the defenses, he has the lords bring in their men. He learned from the palantir, eventhough if it hurt him more then helped, he used the palantir to his advantage. But, he sits in his hall and wastes lives, we get a sense that the men's morale is low.

Gandalf comes in as that "spiritual leader" that "General Patton" people need to get them fired up. It was said the hearts of men rose when Gandalf was around but quickly sank when he left. I think eventhough unintentionally they are both important to the victory of Gondor.

In Aragorn's case he's both. He is a "Gandalf," he is a leader of men, and he is a Denethor, he plans, he's patient, and he knows when and when not to make a move. Aragorn wasn't like this through the whole story, he struggles with leadership in the beginning, but this is the new man, or "galvanized" Aragorn we see in the end.

[Lalwendë]

I agree that Aragorn is a skilled politician. He makes use of patience and respect in order to gain the trust and devotion of the people of Gondor. He leads by example, going into battle himself, even going where no-one else would dare to go, through The Paths of the Dead. He is very much a ‘hands-on’ leader and in a war which is seen by all as ‘just’ then military skill and courage contributes a great deal towards engendering the respect of the population.

Shown against the actions of Denethor, Aragorn is humble and respectful beyond measure. He considers other opinions and listens before speaking. Denethor on the other hand always seems to use his power of veto and have the final say, for good or ill; this has not gone unnoticed amongst those who he is responsible for, the population of Gondor:

And now Faramir was gone again. 'They give him no rest,' some murmured. 'The Lord drives his son too hard, and now he must do the duty of two, for himself and for the one that will not return.'

Yet superlative military leadership is not all. Drawing an example from history, Churchill has been voted as the greatest Briton of all time following his wartime leadership which might lead you to expect that he would have had massive support following the end of WWII, and yet in the election of 1945 he was dealt a crushing defeat by Attlee with his welfare reform agenda. Aragorn as a leader obviously has something extra to support him, and that is Gandalf.

I see Gandalf as the perfect mentor to Aragorn, who relies on his counsel a great deal. When the Fellowship are passing the Pillars of Argonath, not long after losing Gandalf, Aragorn is struck by his destiny enough to give a stirring oration on his ancestry and destiny, but soon a lack of self-confidence brings him down:

Then the light of his eyes faded, and he spoke to himself: 'Would that Gandalf were here! How my heart yearns for Minas Anor and the walls of my own city! But whither now shall I go?'

He is seemingly ‘lost’ without his mentor, and unable to make a clear decision which he trusts will be the best choice. At the Last Debate, where the decision is taken to ride to the Black Gate, Aragorn is quiet at first, and Gandalf effectively takes on the role of chief strategist and chairman.

Gandalf sometimes appears to be something of a consummate spin-doctor. He is not respected by every leader. Theoden, influenced by the machinations of Grima, does not trust the wizard, and nor does Denethor. Yet his ‘charge’, Aragorn, is content to let him impart his considerable wisdom, and Gandalf certainly has the ear of the ‘common people’, the inhabitants of Minas Tirith and The Shire.

And yet, it becomes clear that as time has gone by, Aragorn has learned much from his mentor, as displayed in his expert use of propaganda when he appears in the Palantir to Sauron, to lead him into believing that the Ring may in fact still be in the hands of Men, rather than Hobbit ‘spies’ sneaking into his land right under his nose.

At the end of The Last Debate Aragorn’s ‘politics’ are neatly summed up when he speaks with the tone and authority of a leader, without issuing command but commanding respect, and acknowledging the influence of his mentor:

They were silent for a while. At length Aragorn spoke. 'As I have begun, so I will go on. We come now to the very brink, where hope and despair are akin. To waver is to fall. Let none now reject the counsels of Gandalf, whose long labours against Sauron come at last to their test. But for him all would long ago have been lost. Nonetheless I do not yet claim to command any man. Let others choose as they will.'

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think what really shines is how Aragorn deals with when is the time he should come fourth and take claim, he handles the political side well.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I agree that Aragorn is a skilled politician.

I appreciate what you are both getting at, but I rather think that Tolkien's thoughts in response to a review of LotR by WH Auden are applicable in relation to the use of the word "political" here:

I dislike the use of "political" in such a context; it seems to me false. It seems clear to me that Frodo’s duty was "humane" not political. He naturally thought first of the Shire, since his roots were there, but the quest had as its object not the preserving of this or that polity, such as the half republic half aristocracy of the Shire, but a liberation from an evil tyranny of all the "humane" - including those, such as 'easterlings' and Haradrim, that were still servants of the tyranny.

Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir. It had become for him a prime motive to preserve the polity of Gondor, as it was, against another potentate, who had made himself stronger and was to be feared and opposed for that reason rather than because he was ruthless and wicked. Denethor despised lesser men, and one may be sure did not distinguish between Orcs and the allies of Mordor. If he had survived as a victor, even without use of the Ring, he would have taken a long stride towards becoming himself a tyrant, and the terms and treatment he accorded to the deluded peoples of east and south would have been cruel and vengeful. He had become a "political" leader: sc. Gondor against the rest.

Letter #183

It is clear from his description of Denethor as "political" and all that this entails that Tolkien considers the word as denoting someone who takes action primarily to preserve his or her own position, rather than with any "humane" (ie moral or right) objective in mind. (And, not being particularly enamoured of our current crop of politicians, I would tend to agree with him on this one.) He describes Frodo's Quest as "humane" rather than "political", and I think that Aragorn's actions during the War of the Ring can be viewed in a similar light. He would have acted in the same way whether it established his claim as King of Gondor or not.

Admittedly, his actions following the Battle of Pelennor Fields, particularly his forbearance in entering the White City, contribute towards his eventual acceptance as King. But I would rather say that he is exercising good judgment here than "political" skill. Rather than being calculated to aid his cause, which would imply an element of political manipulation, he is simply displaying good common sense:

"But this City and realm has rested in the charge of the Stewards for many long years, and I fear that if I enter it unbidden, then doubt and debate may arise, which should not be while this war is fought ...

... But I deem the time unripe; and I have no mind for strife except with our Enemy and his servants."

To Aragorn's mind, there is little sense in stirring up a (potentially acrimonious) dispute over his claim while Sauron is still to be defeated.

I wonder how Aragorn would have reacted had his claim been rejected. I severely doubt that he would have pressed it (as a politican such as Denethor might have) in any way other than in a (to use Tolkien's term) "humane" manner.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Gandalf sometimes appears to be something of a consummate spin-doctor.

The Istari as spin-doctors? Hmm, perhaps Alistair Campbell is one of the Blue Wizards ...

Again, the term carries connotations of (political) manipulation that are, to my mind, simply not present in Gandalf's character.

[Celebaglar]

As it is a fairy tale, it seems absurd of me to say that Aragorn uses the touch of a happy ending of a story. Which he did figuratively and literally. I wonder though, did people ever take advantage of his kindness?

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Does it take more then a "right" to the throne to actually take the throne? What I mean is, in politics, a key is the support of the people. And how do you get that support, through your battle experience. For example the successful General Earnil II, or even the Rohan Marshal Eomer.

I love the fact that this sounds like "real" history.

[Eruanna]

Does it take more then a "right" to the throne to actually take the throne? What I mean is, in politics, a key is the support of the people. And how do you get that support, through your battle experience.

Not just through experience in battle. Although traditionally a king is meant to be a warrior he is also expected to show great wisdom and a sense of justice.

I think that the fact that Aragorn fulfilled a prophecy is one of the reasons that he was accepted by the people of Gondor, they were longing for their king's return, after the troubles of recent times they looked to him as their saviour:

" Upon the formost ship a great standard broke...There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count..."

We must also not forget the fact that kings are traditionally meant to have the power of healing. In medieval times, being touched by the king himself or even his garment was believed to be the cure for a variety of diseases.

"The hands of the king are the hands of a healer. And so the rightful king could ever be known"

So says Ioreth, and after seeing Aragorn perform his healing ability on both Faramir and Eowyn, she is convinced and begins to spread the word.

"And soon the word had gone out from the House that the king was indeed come among them, and after war he brought healing; and the news ran throughout the city."

The people didn't just have to take Ioreth's word for it either. They had living proof in the form of their beloved Faramir.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

...And how do you get that support, through your battle experience. For example the successful General Earnil II, or even the Rohan Marshal Eomer...

...I definately would agree, The Black Gate victory got Aragorn the support he needed. Showed everyone he was a capable leader and fighter. Which I ask, do you have to be a "successful" warrior to hold high political office? Boromir was High Warden of the White Tower (I love that fancy title), Elrond and Galadriel have already shown their capabilities...etc.

Being a successful general means nothing if you do not possess the loyalty and allegiance of an army to back your claims to any royal station. Historical personnels like Alexander, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte understood well that without true military muscle, lineage and popularity meant nothing.

Alexander was able to retain hegemony of the League of Corinth due to his alacrity and the Macedonian Army, Caesar was emperor in all but name because he had the backing of his legions and Bonaparte was in his own words, raised to the imperial seat by his soldiers. It did help that each three were astute demagogues in their own right, but without true military power they would have been nothing.

That said, having an army under your command does not bestow upon you the necessary credentials either. Witness the fate of Albrecht Wallenstein, arguably the best commander of the imperialist forces during the Thirty Years War. With a string of impressive victories under his belt and at times possessing the largest standing army in Europe, this mercenary captain was did in by his own subordinates who were bribed by the imperial seat in Wien. The main cause of his downfall was that unlike the above three, Wallenstein had not made himself indispensable to the army for its own well being. Alexander turned native Macedonian sheep herders and craftsmen into lords of asia, legionnaires that followed Caesar were far wealthier than other plebians of their time and the Grande Armee plundered Europe in a scale that was mindbogging. All three armies understood that without their respective leaders, they could not have enjoyed what they have acquired. This clientele system was the basis of any great military leader with higher aspirations.

As for control of the masses, it is worth noting that the big three at all times governed civilian populations that far out numbered their army or even native population. They keys to their sucesses were reputation, alacrity and astute administration. When Alexander approached Babylon and Persepolis, the inhabitants chose to open their doors to him with the fates of Gaza and Tyre in mind. Ditto for Rome and the other italian cities when Caesar started his civil war campaigns, out of fear of what he did to the Gauls during their revolt and where the Grande Armee marched, the populations dared not resist because of the reputation of Bonaparte and the power of his army. That is the power of reputation, but only enforcible with a strong army to back with. Speed was also a key component in controling the masses because it left them helpless with no options nor united cohesion and history shows that when that happened, the masses yield to pressure. The first two components yield control of the masses to the great captain generals, but to maintain or even increase this grip, good administration was required. The civilain population must be made to believe that they were better off with the conqueror and his army lording over them than the previous occupying power. The answer was to grant thme their needs and later, wants. If the population was starving, feed them. If the population wanted peace, give it to them. And when the bare essentials of social security were in place, try to enhance their standards.

In the case of Aragon II, he had no standing army to back him in a clientele system and so was in a position Wallenstein was in. He procrastinated in entering the center of power which would have given his opponents the time to unite and gather resources to oppose him. And lastly he decided on a battle that was even riskier than Napoleon's 1812 Russian invasion, Alexander's Indian expedition and Caesar's planned attack on Parthia. In all he went against the teachings of the great three and if he was in the real world, he would have suffered a crushing defeat, an ignominious end and eternal condemnation by scholars of history. But hey, it's Tolkiens fantasy! If he wanted Aragon II to sprout wings and fly, the later would.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

In the case of Aragon II, he had no standing army to back him in a clientele system and so was in a position Wallenstein was in. He procrastinated in entering the center of power which would have given his opponents the time to unite and gather resources to oppose him. And lastly he decided on a battle that was even riskier than Napoleon's 1812 Russian invasion, Alexander's Indian expedition and Caesar's planned attack on Parthia. In all he went against the teachings of the great three and if he was in the real world, he would have suffered a crushing defeat, an ignominious end and eternal condemnation by scholars of history. But hey, it's Tolkiens fantasy! If he wanted Aragon II to sprout wings and fly, the later would.

Hey, they all would have died anyway if Frodo hadn't succeeded.

[Lyta_Underhill]

All three armies understood that without their respective leaders, they could not have enjoyed what they have acquired. This clientele system was the basis of any great military leader with higher aspirations.

Of course, Aragorn did have the support of the entire Kingdom of Rohan and their legions, as well as the endorsement of the Prince of Dol Amroth, who was to rule as Steward in the stead of Faramir when the latter was injured and in the Houses of Healing. He is also credited with the healing of Faramir, who is beloved of all in Minas Tirith, soldier and civilian alike. I always found it extraordinary that Aragorn, unlike a harsher military leader, did not chastise those soldiers who did not have the heart or strength to fight at the Black Gate, but instead allowed them to save face by turning them to the task of retaking the lands lost in the previous battle. The way I see it, to agree with Neurion above, without Frodo's success, it doesn't matter whether Aragorn is king of Gondor and Arnor or not. But his humanity will still be weighed in the balance, and not be found wanting. He acts in a way that puts humanity above the mere realm of Gondor and in this, reflects Faramir's assertion to Frodo with regard to the Ring, that he would not take it even if Minas Tirith were to fall.

An apt quote of Letter 183 as well, SPM, and there does seem to be a consciousness on Aragorn's part that he must have support; however, that support will not be bought at the price of inhumanity to a single person. It is refreshing to see such scrupulous integrity, and I can understand why it would be astronomically improbable in the "real world." Therefore, I avoid real people and talk to Ents!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Lobelia]

I actually did my Honours thesis in English literature on the subject of King Arthur and why he starts off as a heroic warrior and ends up sitting in Camelot handing out knighthoods. The conclusion I drew from my research was that a mediaeval Christian king was not supposed to go out to battle, because of the fact that the land depended on him to stay alive. Yes, I know, I know, there were mediaeval warrior-kings such as Richard the Lionheart. But face it, he was a lousy king, no matter what the Robin Hood movies tell you. I doubt if he would have been considered a good king even in his own time. Now, Aragorn is a warrior, no question about it, but he has spent most of his life as being something other than a King, even if he does have the right to the throne. My guess is that, in the Fourth Age, he would have been concentrating on running his kingdom and delegated the warrior duties to the likes of Faramir. (If I missed some reference to a battle in the Appendices, sorry!). Yes, Tolkien's work is full of early kings who went off to battle, but look what happened to them - and their kingdoms! Worse still, their heirs nearly always seem to get killed at the same time. And none of them is *the* King.

Another thing: I get the impression that Tolkien's aristocrats earn their respect. They may have been born to rule, but they work for it, keeping the borders safe and protecting their people. I'm thinking of the Rangers and their ilk in particular. Aragorn has certainly earned his kingship by the time he's crowned! He doesn't have to bea politican.

[Lobelia]

I actually did my Honours thesis in English literature on the subject of King Arthur and why he starts off as a heroic warrior and ends up sitting in Camelot handing out knighthoods. The conclusion I drew from my research was that a mediaeval Christian king was not supposed to go out to battle, because of the fact that the land depended on him to stay alive. Yes, I know, I know, there were mediaeval warrior-kings such as Richard the Lionheart. But face it, he was a lousy king, no matter what the Robin Hood movies tell you. I doubt if he would have been considered a good king even in his own time. Now, Aragorn is a warrior, no question about it, but he has spent most of his life as being something other than a King, even if he does have the right to the throne. My guess is that, in the Fourth Age, he would have been concentrating on running his kingdom and delegated the warrior duties to the likes of Faramir. (If I missed some reference to a battle in the Appendices, sorry!). Yes, Tolkien's work is full of early kings who went off to battle, but look what happened to them - and their kingdoms! Worse still, their heirs nearly always seem to get killed at the same time. And none of them is *the* King.

Another thing: I get the impression that Tolkien's aristocrats earn their respect. They may have been born to rule, but they work for it, keeping the borders safe and protecting their people. I'm thinking of the Rangers and their ilk in particular. Aragorn has certainly earned his kingship by the time he's crowned! He doesn't have to be a politician.

[Boromir88]

Going back to an earlier post by SpM, with the quote from the letters about "politics." Perhaps the difference between Aragorn and Denethor is Aragorn isn't corrupted by the politics.

We saw him in Rohan try to disobey Theoden's orders. He had full right to claim Rohan when he claimed Kingship, but he didn't. Which differs from Denethor. Denethor despises anyone who doesn't fight under him. He has become corrupted and obsessed with ruling people, being in charge (similar to Sauron and Saruman allthough not to their extent). He can't see that Gandalf is there to help him. He only thinks Gandalf wants to overthrow him and place Aragorn in his stead. He can't see the fact that he's not a king, he's a steward, he takes care of the throne until the king returns. Aragorn is not corrupted by the power he possesses, and Denethor you might say tries to use power he doesn't have. I wouldn't say "politician" is a bad word to describe Aragorn, he just hasn't become corrupted with the power that most politicians hold.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

He had full right to claim Rohan when he claimed Kingship, but he didn't.

Boromir, I disagree. In the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion of The King of the Golden Hall, we discussed the fact that Rohan was an independent kingdom, allied with Gondor but not subserviant to the Gondorian king. Aragorn made a mistake there, from which he learned a lesson. He had absolutely no claim to any kind of rulership in Rohan. At the end of LotR, both Éomer and Aragorn are kings, renewing their friendship. Though one kingdom is greater and more influential than the other, neither falls under the jurisdiction of the other.

[dwarfguard]

Estelyn is right , to the point: I believe the people were ready for a king and not just stewards.When they learned he was an heir of isildur it just convinced them further.Oh yeah, and saving Minas Tirith didnt hurt either.

[Lalwendë]

When we use the word 'politician' it can unfortunately these days conjour up negative images, but we must remember that not all politicians are bad or unsatisfactory. And in Aragorn I do think we have Tolkien painting a picture of what it takes to be a truly effective and popular politician. There is no democracy in Middle Earth, nation states are ruled by absolute monarchs (even The Shire still nods to an absent king), and as Tolkien stated in his letters, he seemed to prefer this system. But this is a system open to abuse, as I'm sure Tolkien himself would have appreciated, and in Aragorn he showed us a monarch who was also a skilled politician and who had overwhelming popular support. it is an ideal.

Originally Posted by SpM

Rather than being calculated to aid his cause, which would imply an element of political manipulation, he is simply displaying good common sense

Aragorn's actions at not entering Minas Tirith as the all conquering victor are indeed good common sense, but this in itself is at the root of good political sense. He has the bloodline to prove he is the rightful king, and he has just proved himself in battle, but he still needs the popular support if the ideal of an absolute monarch mandated by the people is to happen.

Aragorn's inexperience at the necessary political and diplomatic behaviour was displayed at Edoras, and he rapidly learns, through the tutelage of Gandalf and a quick succession of events, the correct way to approach these matters. I cannot see his actions outside Minas Tirith as anything other than astute political skills of the highest order. Contrasted with his bluster at Meduseld, his behaviour outside his own city is exemplary.

Many factors come together up to the moment of Aragorn's coronation to make him into something of the 'ultimate king'. He has gained the respect and fealty of neighbouring kingdoms, his mythological status is confirmed by Ioreth, and he has the Steward, the former ruler of Gondor, on his side, thus avoiding civil conflict. He has also been lucky that Denethor is not around to stir up trouble, and that he has the best mentor any inexperienced king could wish for.

I do not think Tolkien was against all politicians, only those (and those who seem these days to be prevalent unfortunately) who are in it for the power. Time and again he shows us figures who have been corrupted by the negative side of politics. We have the aggressive rulers in the forms of Sauron and Saruman who seek to empire build. Denethor is the politician who senses his time is up and his desperation causes him to lose the essential power of leadership. There is Grima, the sinister Sir Humphrey figure who craves power and uses the very modern art of manipulation even to the point of his own destruction. And there are even local officials drunk on the power to enforce petty rules as seen in Lotho. All of these come to a sticky end.

So what I see is a message that while politics can easily corrupt leaders, they can also enrich and enable, if the poltical skills being used are for the good of the people, and are coupled with humility and respect. Aragorn is a skilled politician, and he has to be for how else is he to apear such a good king if he does not know how to lead?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Aragorn's inexperience at the necessary political and diplomatic behaviour was displayed at Edoras, and he rapidly learns, through the tutelage of Gandalf and a quick succession of events, the correct way to approach these matters. I cannot see his actions outside Minas Tirith as anything other than astute political skills of the highest order. Contrasted with his bluster at Meduseld, his behaviour outside his own city is exemplary.

Inexperience...

I wonder if this is the right word to use. You are suggesting that Aragorn had no prior political experience, which I would say is a false statement. After all, what do you think "Thorongil" was doing in Gondor? Why was Denethor so jealous? It would seem to me that Aragorn has a pretty strong grasp of politics, or did at one time.

As for Aragorn's behaviour at Meduseld, I would agree that there is an element of inexperience, in that Aragorn is not yet used to dealing with political situation AS ARAGORN. He is not used to being able to state his title and claim his position. Besides which, as we see in Unfinished Tales, Aragorn (as King) later AFFIRMS the decision of Cirion, and grants utterly and completely the land to Rohan. It would have been extremely stupid (considering the entrenchment of the Rohirrim in their land) as well as extremely impolitical (considering that the Rohirrim were Gondor's main allies), not to mention extremely ungrateful (considering the history of the War) to do otherwise, but remember the words of the Steward, on that occasion, and on every occasion they acted in authority...

"Until the King should come again."

However, that is just going off on a tangent, when my point is to suggest that Aragorn was not standing entirely on quicksand, in addition to the fact that he seriously did not want anyone else handling Anduril (for good reason, I imagine), and the fact that he was probably extremely tired, having been riding all over Rohan, and that after walking across in the face of Saruman's magic.

If Aragorn hadn't been so tired, he would have thought through what he was saying a little bit more, and simply put the sword down with a (very!) stern warning not to touch. But he was tired, so he didn't...

That's my take on the situation, anyway. Aragorn wasn't a political newbie. His history clearly shows that he couldn't be.

Actually...

Thinking about Aragorn's history, maybe in the days of Thengel, and earlier in the reign of Theoden, it was customary to wear weapons in the king's presence, and a sign of dishonour to be forcibly disarmed. I have NO info whatsoever to back up that totally random thought, but maybe that could be a part of it. Remember that Gimli only decides he can put down his axe with honour once Aragorn decides its all right.

[Lalwendë]

He did have experience, but not political experience. As Thorongil and as Strider he was a soldier, so his experience was of the military kind. He was undergoing his learning, spending time in his own realm as an ordinary man, and giving service at the same time. He did not need political experience in such situations as his lineage was not made public. Once he started saying who he was, that was the time he would need political skills, as his statements and his status would be called into question. As Strider his actions did all the work for him, once he became Aragorn, his actions would need backing up with careful thought and behaviour.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If Aragorn hadn't been so tired, he would have thought through what he was saying a little bit more, and simply put the sword down with a (very!) stern warning not to touch. But he was tired, so he didn't...

But wasn't he tired after the battle of the Pelennor Fields? Possibly even more tired, but in this situation he instead behaves wisely. This is because he has learned from what he almost did in Rohan. He followed Gandalf's advice and all that followed could only have been to his advantage; he demonstrated his leadership qualities at Helm's Deep and gained the respect of Theoden and his people, and this would have proved to him that he did the right thing in that situation. In between Helm's Deep and Pelennor, it is notable that Aragorn keeps very quiet at isengard, another difficult situation, where he seems simply to observe how Gandalf handles Saruman.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

He did have experience, but not political experience. As Thorongil and as Strider he was a soldier, so his experience was of the military kind. He was undergoing his learning, spending time in his own realm as an ordinary man, and giving service at the same time. He did not need political experience in such situations as his lineage was not made public. Once he started saying who he was, that was the time he would need political skills, as his statements and his status would be called into question. As Strider his actions did all the work for him, once he became Aragorn, his actions would need backing up with careful thought and behaviour.

I am not saying that Thoringil was PRIMARILY a political persona, or even majorly, but I highly doubt that Aragorn had NO political involvement. He was, after all, very close to the centre of Gondorian power: Ecthelion, and even a rival for Denethor. I refuse to believe that Aragorn had NO political involvement, although I would agree that he was a soldier first and foremost. And as I mentioned, there was still a lot be learned when assuming his real identity in public.

But wasn't he tired after the battle of the Pelennor Fields? Possibly even more tired, but in this situation he instead behaves wisely. This is because he has learned from what he almost did in Rohan. He followed Gandalf's advice and all that followed could only have been to his advantage; he demonstrated his leadership qualities at Helm's Deep and gained the respect of Theoden and his people, and this would have proved to him that he did the right thing in that situation. In between Helm's Deep and Pelennor, it is notable that Aragorn keeps very quiet at isengard, another difficult situation, where he seems simply to observe how Gandalf handles Saruman.

Well, I'm not saying that Aragorn DIDN'T learn from Gandalf and his experience at Meduseld. It's quite possible that he learnred a lot, even likely.

What I AM saying is that an 80+ year old Aragorn, with the life experience he possessed, and his natural talent for picking up on things, would have been extremely unlikely to know NOTHING about politics. I'm not saying that it was your intent to portray it as such, but it was looking like you were saying that Aragorn was completely in the dark at Meduseld.

I just wanted to balance the perception a little, by posting in the opposite direction.

[Saurreg]

War with the exception of brigandage is an act of politics and an instrument of policy. As such to wage war is to exercise both statesmanship and generalship. Although in recent history the conduct of war is seperated between the government and the general staff, I should think that in the Third Age, the two bodies were one and their processes were carried out in unity.

When Aragon II as Thorongil devised, planned and led the military campaigns of Gondor, he was charting the foreign policy of his people and in essence waging a war of Dúnedain civilization against other civilizations to ensure the the interests and security of his people were upheld.

There is very little detail written on his generalship and we do not know if he was granted plenipotentiary in his conduct with other civilizations. But we do know that at the end of Thorongil's service, the Kingdom was surrounded by a litter of broken and weakened states that would not threaten her for years to come. If it was Aragon II's intention to prolong the survival of Gondor, then he had succeeded.

I would also submit that even greater than his military exploits, was his one single act just as Gondor achieved regionally superiority - his abrupt departure, his coup de maître

Without Aragon II as its guiding light, Gondor lost its sense of bearing and failed to achieve regionally hegemony. This was what I believe Aragon II intended for Gondor; to be a giant at peace with its neighbours and not embark on a Machiavellian path of unchecked expansionism. And indeed the only way to do so was to provide an obstacle to expansion and that was the absence of his services. Aragon II must have gambled on the fact that without Thorongil the Great, no one in Gondor, not even Denethor II would dare fill his shoes and he was absolutely right.

Expansionism always carried its share of risks. Aragon II would have calculated that after his campaigns, Gondor was exhausted and any expansion would be over-expansion, leaving the enlarged state less competent and more vulnerable externally and internally. He must have also been astute enough to realize that should the surrounding weaker states percieve the eminent threat Gondor posed, they would have consolidated and formed an alliance, resulting in a nightmare scenario of his Kingdom surrounded by a sea of united hostile states.

And lastly I think Aragon II left the adjacent civilizations weakened but unmolested for very humane reasons. He was Dúnedain by blood but the genius in him must have understood the roots of diversity and the celebration of universal brotherhood. Instead of having Gondor conquer all and impose its set of cultures, traditions and values to the conquered people resulting in the lost of their indigenous counterparts, Aragon chose to preserve them for future prosperity. He must have thought that future relations could be built upon shared common interests and values than on blood and iron.

That last attribute could well be the reason that even after the Third Age, Aragon II carried out new expeditions, even beyond the sea of Khun. Perhaps like a well-known real-life colossal who left his mark on this world millennias ago, Aragon II wanted to create a greater empire of universal brotherhood where the high blood of the Dúnedain was irrelevant and where the shared visions of a united race of men were supreme.

Illuvatar would have applauded!

[eowyntje]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Now in one of Tolkien's earlier drafts, Boromir doesn't die, and he goes to Minas Tirith with Aragorn. Aragorn takes claim to the throne, Boromir objects, and starts brewing a Civil War. Aragorn then kills Boromir. Tolkien threw out this idea, but there could be some importance.

how extremely extremely interesting Do you know any more about this ealier draft?

As for Aragorn, there are, es explained by many in this topic, a lot of reasons to think he would be a good king. But most are based on what he did before he was king. Maybe a gudgement on his political qualities canbe made by looking at his time as King of Gondor.
How much is known about Aragorn's rulership once has was on the Throne of Gondor? All I could find on this is that he Reunited Arnor and Gondor, but i know nothing of the political matters surrounding this case. (I have no quotes, but some of this matter is described in the Encyclopedia of Arda, http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default...dyofrohan.html)
Also thee is mention that he enforces a law that forbids men to enter the shirt, (and obeyed this law himself)
How much else is known about Aragorns actions while he was king?

((please forgive me my spelling mistakes or ill structures sentences, I am still learning english))

[Boromir88]

I think some other smart moves done by Aragorn that haven't been mentioned yet, is actually his humility he shows to Boromir.

Aragorn's claim is brought out in the Council, and although Boromir hasn't yet accepted Aragorn as King he admits that Gondor is in some desperate times and the "sword," would be of some great help. He is yet unsure of Aragorn, however. Aragorn knowing this, plays humility towards Boromir, trying to win Boromir's trust. Knowing that Boromir may very well be the most prestigious man in Gondor. His title is "Captain-General of Gondor's forces." In common day terms that would be like "Commander-in-chief." And supported by Denethor it is not him who leads his men, he sits back in his hall, and leaves the leading up to his sons (at first mostly Boromir, then once he's dead Faramir). Also, Boromir is to be the future Steward of Gondor. Aragorn recognizes if his claim is to fall through he will have to get the approval of the Steward, as well as some of Gondor's most prestigious men.

So what does Aragorn do? He shows humility and actually takes orders from Boromir. On Caradhras Boromir says he and Aragorn will carry the Hobbits, Aragorn possibly in an attempt to buddy up to Boromir, doesn't object, and out of the respect of Boromir's status, listens.

[eowyntje]

In another topic, Elianna quoted this part from the end of part II of Appen, I've never read it but thought it was in interesting quote considering this topic:

Often he fulfilled it. For though Sauron had passed, the hatreds and evils that he bred had not died, and the King of the West had many enemies to subdue before the White Tree could grew in peace. And whenever King Elessar went with war King Éomer went with him; and beyond the Sea of Rhûn and on the far fields of the South the thunder of the calvary of the Mark was heard, and the White Horse upon Green flew in many winds until Éomer grew old.

It seems Aragorn fought a lot of wars when he became King Elessar. so this 'perfect' leader may have been wise and all, but he did not mind going to war once in a while.
Also, it says that the King of the west had many enemies to subdue before the white Tree could grow in peace, apparently Aragorn's firts years as a king were anything but simple and peacefull.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think some other smart moves done by Aragorn that haven't been mentioned yet, is actually his humility he shows to Boromir.
~~~~~~
So what does Aragorn do? He shows humility and actually takes orders from Boromir. On Caradhras Boromir says he and Aragorn will carry the Hobbits, Aragorn possibly in an attempt to buddy up to Boromir, doesn't object, and out of the respect of Boromir's status, listens.

Very politically wise moves, but sometimes I have to wonder if political wisdom isn't just plain common sense. And Aragorn's humility might be just that, genuine humility. After all, humility is one of the great Christian virtues, and Aragorn, as one of Tolkien's most admirable characters, would be well endowed with some of those virtues. Humility is one, maybe?

And what Boromir suggests on Caradhras is just plain common sense. He, a soldier, sees a situation in need of remedy, makes a suggestion to rectify that is fully sound, and Aragorn goes along with it because it is just plain common sense to do so.

In this way, he is very UN-political. Imagine, say, that the Parliament is stuck on Caradhras and has to make their way down. The conservative leader suggests that the strongest men go force a path through the snow, and then come back to help the weaker members through. What would happen then? Would the liberal leader agree to this sensible suggestion. I doubt it... If it was like a meeting of Parliament, then he would likely object just because it was a conservative who suggested it, even though it might be plain common sense to do it.

Perhaps Aragorn's wisdom is as much that he knows when NOT to get political as it is that he is able to function politically when it IS necessary.

[Boromir88]

Great point formendacil, never looked at it that way before, but I couldn't agree with you more .

Eowyn:

how extremely extremely interesting Do you know any more about this ealier draft?

It is very similar to the Arvedui claim, if you are familiar with it. Aragorn goes to Gondor with Boromir, and like Arvedui, claims kingship. Boromir objects and tries to brew up a civil war, telling people to object against Aragorn's claim. Then Aragorn has to go and kill him before too much trouble occurs. In Arvedui's case, he claimed the throne, the Council (led by the Steward Pelendur) rejected his claim (which he clearly had proof), and out of that broke the kin-strife (a civil war). That's what Boromir attempted to do, to start a civil war, but was killed before he got too much support.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Somehow, I can't seem to place Boromir as the rebellious kind:

Boromir, five years the elder, beloved by his father, was like him in face and pride, but in little else. Rather he was a man after the sort of King Earnur of old, taking no wife and delighting chiefly in arms; fearless and strong, but caring little for lore, save the tales of old battles

Of course, this version of him may have been chiselled to perfection after long discourse... But if I am to judge Boromir's character simply by his actions and thoughts in the book, I still would not be able to place him as a rebel...

His brother, of course, is another story...