King Elessar's Folly?

[Lord Melkor]

For quite a while now I've been puzzled by Aragorn's decision to forbid entrance to the Shire to non-Hobbits. Though at first it may seem like a benevolent gesture ensuring the Hobbits' survival, when you start to look more closely this policy may very well have contributed to the sorry state of the Hobbit race as described by Tolkien (hiding in the wild, fleeing from any human they encounter). Let us take a closer look, shall we?

Hobbit society has always been rather non-adventurous, with very few Hobbits ever leaving the confines of the Shire. In fact, almost the only contact the Hobbits have with the rest of Middle-earth is with traders and travelers passing through the Shire. With the Closing of the Shire these travelers and traders will no longer use the Great East Road through the Hobbit's homeland, thus depriving the already insular Hobbits of their contacts with the other peoples of Middle-earth. How is is anything but a bad thing is beyond me and I'm surprised that Aragorn did not anticipate this.

There is of course also a major economical problem with Aragorn's decision. The Great East Road is the major east-west trade route of Eriador (and extends into Rhovanion across the Misty Mountains). However, with one fell swoop of his pencil Aragorn effectively cut off the Blue Mountains (with their Dwarf settlements) and the Grey Havens from the rest of Middle-earth, effectively blocking the major traderoutes in western Middle-earth. This will mean new roads will have to be contructed, either to the north or to the south of the Shire in order to reconnect these lands with the rest of trading Middle-earth. Looking at the map a new southern road would be the most practical. This would allow connection to the Greenway to Gondor and the lands north of the Shire are rather hilly, making road construction more cumbersome. All things considered, this will be another costly expense for the Gondorian treasury, for although Aragorn may not have much interest in 'counting coppers', a healthy economy is paramount to the survival of the empire.

Now let us take a look at the non-existing benefits of Aragorn's decree. His decree was based on protecting the Hobbits from those big bad Humans, who would seek to burn off the hair of his beloved Hobbits' feet with hot pincers if he didn't do something to protect his furryfooted friends. His decree however, is a waste of parchment. Aragorns reign and the subsequent clearing of the woodlands of Eriador would've ensured the Hobbits' safety, thus invalidating the need to turn the Shire into some kind of 'Forbidden Land'. During the reign of Elessar I the Hobbits would've been perfectly safe from harm, well protected by living in the strong reunited kingdom of Gondor and Arnor. But, as history shows, good things rarely last long, and even this kingdom will eventually disintergrate in 500-1000 years or so. By this time however, the Hobbits, having lived in an artificial mini-Arda of their own, shielded from outside influences by armed forces at their borders, will be in for a nasty surprise. The disintergration and collapse of the kingdom will mean that those forces protecting them in their little shell will no longer be there and sooner or later, aggresive forces (be they human or otherwise, like Orcs), will march into the Shire for new lands and loot. The pampered Hobbits of the Fourth Age, who by this time have all but forgotten what a human looked like (the vast majority will have never seen anything else but Hobbits, due to the insular and introspective nature of Hobbit society), will be overwhelmed by the invading hordes and be crushed, slaughtered, enslaved or driven away.

My conclusion is that Aragorns' decree, although intended as a protective, if slightly paternalistic ("Awwww, the poor widdle Hobbits can't take care of themselves...." ) and economically unsound measure to ensure the Hobbits survival in the Fourth Age, probably ensured the Hobbits' demise as a civilized race after the fall of his kingdom.

[Formendacil]

An important thing to remember is that the Shire was the greatest economic force in Eriador at the moment. In the long run it might be more costly to isolate the Shire in the way that Elessar was ordering, but at that point, it was essential to win over the trust of the Hobbits.

With the exception of the Fellowship and a few Bree-ward travelling Bucklander, the Hobbits knew the Big Folk pretty much from Saruman's marauders. And the Hobbits didn't have a great opinion of the Big Folk to begin with, if one goes by the Prologue.

If the re-established Arnor was to be successful in its early years, it needed the aid of the Shire to supply food and goods. Quite simply, Bree, Rivendell, and the Ered Luin dwarves and Elves aren't nearly enough of a force to support them, and Rohan and Gondor are quite distant. In this atmosphere, the good will of hobbits is essential.

And although Sam, Merry, and Pippin will soon fill the top positions in the Shire, one has to remember that the Shire didn't REALLY have a government, and if the Hobbits decided that they didn't want to trade with the Big Folk, it's unlikely that Captain Merry or any of the others could convince them otherwise.

So Elessar's move makes very good sense for the establishment of a new Arnor. Ultimately it might become a rather bad thing, but at the time I would say that it was well-merited, in that it did a very good job of gaining the hobbits' trust.

[alatar]

By Big Folk, did Aragorn mean Elves and Dwarves? If not, then the Dwarves could still traverse the Shire in order to continue trade. Also, those border Hobbits with a bit of greed could offer to transport goods across the Shire for the Big Folk for a bit of coin.

On the other hand, after a few centuries when the big bad folk eventually decide that they are hungry enough to start eating those fat little Hobbits (never seen but spoke of in tales of lore), they might break the ban to find that no Hobbits exist, just a bunch of somewhat shorter people who obviously got there first. Hmmm...

Or Eru could step in again like when the Big Folk violated that other Ban...

[Kuruharan]

I seriously doubt the Elves cared two straws about the decree. Who would be able to stop them frolicking where they chose anyway? Besides, I don't think Aragorn would have intended the decree to apply to the Elves. He held them in such high regard that they could probably do what they wished.

The ban might more plausibly have applied to Dwarves.

Lord Melkor has brought up an interesting thing to ponder.

[The Saucepan Man]

I wonder if Tolkien, when conceiving Aragorn's decree, had in mind the effect of colonisation on indiginous peoples. Perhaps he was uncomfortable with the possibility of the Shire being colonised, and its resources plundered, by the Big People. I'm not suggesting any kind of allegory here (God forbid ), but the circumstances of places like Africa and the Indian Sub-Continent may have guided his thoughts, given that many former (UK and other European) colonies were seeking, or being given, their independence at the time that he was writing LotR.

[Gwydion]

I believe that the ban only applied to Humans and not elves or dwarves. And yes the ban might one day be broken, but as proved in ROTK, the hobbits are a fierce folk when provoked and some hobbits,Tooks, would still go outside the borders, so they would not be totally isolated. The dunadain would most likely still travel to the Shire by leave of the king and the folk of Bree would probably still enter the Shire.

I also agree with Alatar that some hobbits would allow the Big Folk to pay them to transport their goods across the Shire and I say again the ban probably applied only to Humans because the Elves and Dwarves were not under the rule of Gondor or Arnor or any other kingdom of men no matter how high and mighty they may be.

[Elianna]

Originally Posted by Gwydion

The dunadain would most likely still travel to the Shire by leave of the king and the folk of Bree would probably still enter the Shire.

I doubt it, Gwydion. Aragorn didn't even give himself leave to travel the Shire. If he was going to be that lax about the Ban, there really was no use in making it.

As far as the ban goes on Elves and Dwarves, that's a question of how much hemogony Aragorn has over their races. Doubtless, he has little power over the Dwarves (does anyone?), but Arwen is his Queen, and isn't she called "Queen of Elves and Men" somewhere? I think the Elves would have respected Elessar's rule.

I see the ban as a last bit of "Strider" peaking through, hoping to finally end the Dunedain's long watch over the Shire, though it is in direct conflict with the wise counsil of Gildor: "The wide world is all about you: You can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out."

[Mithalwen]

In Appendix B it says the edict is that "Men are not to enter the shire" which solves the Elf/Dwarf issue. I doubt that Elves would have taken any notice - and lets face it they had been passing discreetly through the shire for ages without anyone really taking much notice (apart from Bilbo and Frodo). Dwarves had been passing through more conspicuously but non threateningly I would say ( I mean people must have noticed Thorin and Co and the Dwarves who were around at the time of the party but I cannot think of any examples of anyone being overly disturbed by dwarves in transit. I imagine that most dwarves had removed from the Ered Luin to Erebor after the downfall of Smaug so I doubt they would be an issue either.

This leaves men - and to an extent how you interpret enter. My air travel tends to be planned at the last moment and the cheap options tend to involve changing planes and so I have an unenviable breadth of experience of transit lounges. So while I have physically been in (during the course of one journey!) Austria, Abu Dhabi, Singapore & Indonesia (2 airports!), I didn't actually legally enter another country after leaving the UK until the second stop in Australia. So I wonder if he meant enter and settle (remember how worried Butterbur was about people coming up from the south) rather than not allowed to pass through.

However I am suggesting this as a vague possibility rather than something I am convinced about - blame the fact that I am working for Lawyers at the moment that I am hypothesising that it is possible to interpret black as white!!!!

With regard to the roads, with the re-establishment of a settlement at Lake Evendim I expect roads would be re-established from both the end of the road from sarn Ford skirting the far downs, and from Fornost. Allowing most of the likely traffic to "by-pass" the Shire. However a strict "no men must set foot in the Shire" rule becomes more impracticable when the Westmarch is added to the shire and means a more lengthy (and hilly) detour left and right when the most direct route is straight on. It is really not a sensible way to run a kingdom having a self inflicted no-go area smack bang in the middle. So I have a suspicion that it is more a symbolic gesture than anything... like our own dear Queen being given a pair of ducks every time she sets foot in the Channel Islands

[Lord Melkor]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

In Appendix B it says the edict is that "Men are not to enter the shire" which solves the Elf/Dwarf issue. I doubt that Elves would have taken any notice - and lets face it they had been passing discreetly through the shire for ages without anyone really taking much notice (apart from Bilbo and Frodo). Dwarves had been passing through more conspicuously but non threateningly I would say ( I mean people must have noticed Thorin and Co and the Dwarves who were around at the time of the party but I cannot think of any examples of anyone being overly disturbed by dwarves in transit. I imagine that most dwarves had removed from the Ered Luin to Erebor after the downfall of Smaug so I doubt they would be an issue either.

This leaves men - and to an extent how you interpret enter. My air travel tends to be planned at the last moment and the cheap options tend to involve changing planes and so I have an unenviable breadth of experience of transit lounges. So while I have physically been in (during the course of one journey!) Austria, Abu Dhabi, Singapore & Indonesia (2 airports!), I didn't actually legally enter another country after leaving the UK until the second stop in Australia. So I wonder if he meant enter and settle (remember how worried Butterbur was about people coming up from the south) rather than not allowed to pass through.

However I am suggesting this as a vague possibility rather than something I am convinced about - blame the fact that I am working for Lawyers at the moment that I am hypothesising that it is possible to interpret black as white!!!!

With regard to the roads, with the re-establishment of a settlement at Lake Evendim I expect roads would be re-established from both the end of the road from sarn Ford skirting the far downs, and from Fornost. Allowing most of the likely traffic to "by-pass" the Shire. However a strict "no men must set foot in the Shire" rule becomes more impracticable when the Westmarch is added to the shire and means a more lengthy (and hilly) detour left and right when the most direct route is straight on. It is really not a sensible way to run a kingdom having a self inflicted no-go area smack bang in the middle. So I have a suspicion that it is more a symbolic gesture than anything... like our own dear Queen being given a pair of ducks every time she sets foot in the Channel Islands

Hmmm, I agree that neither the Elves or the Dwarves would've paid much notion to the edict ( I should note however that the fact that the Elves and Dwarves aren't part of the Reunited Kingdom doesn't necessarily mean that they can ignore it's laws while traveling through it's lands). Of course, the Elves are pretty much a non-factor in trading Middle-earth, so even if they were not allowed to enter it would not have much of an effect. The fact that the dwarves are allowed passage ensures that the Hobbits have at least some connection to the outside world, but it still leaves out the most prominent race of all: Men. Considering that the Fourth Age signals the beginning of the rule of Men shutting of the Shire would seem like a bad move.

As to the nature of the edict: In HoME IV , Sauron Defeated, there is an excerpt dealing with this. Sam receives a letter from Aragorn, stating that he is going to pay a visit to the Shire. In the letter Aragorn states he desires to meet his friends at the Brandywine river, for not even the King himself should break his own edicts (as Elianna pointed out). This passage clearly shows that even traveling through the Shire was forbidden to Men. I'm not sure how symbolic this was. It may be that the ban wasn't enforced that much, and that Aragorn was merely showing off in this case (Look at me! I'm such a benevolent and wise King that I even follow my own laws! Go me!). It is obvious that the development of New Arnor would be hindered massively if the Shire would've remained off-limits to all human traffic.

[littlemanpoet]

I think that Meriadoc, Samwise, and Peregrin, the three most powerful Hobbits in the Shire in the early years of the Fourth Age, had enough clout to provide the trust of the Hobbits to Elessar.

There were no Men to the west of the Shire, to my knowledge, so the reason for an alternate road west for Men would not have materialized unless the Elves and Dwarves turned to tourism.

It seems that if there was trade between the Dwarves of the Ered Luin and Men of Bree and other parts of Eriador, the Dwarves, not subject to the ban, would have done well.

All that said, I still agree with Lord Melkor that it was a shortsighted, paternalistic mistake on the part of Elessar. Rather than a Ban, he shoulded have granted the Hobbits legal suzerainty of the Shire, and offered border protection in cooperation with Hobbits' efforts to keep their borders safe.

You can be sure that a brand new trading center or town would have popped up on the eastern side of the Stownbow Bridge over the Brandywine, where Hobbits would have made a killing in tarriffs and tolls.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lord Melkor

Hmmm, I agree that neither the Elves or the Dwarves would've paid much notion to the edict ( I should note however that the fact that the Elves and Dwarves aren't part of the Reunited Kingdom doesn't necessarily mean that they can ignore it's laws while traveling through it's lands).

Yes but the point is since they are not men they are not bound by it...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

An interesting topic.
Given that an obvious original growth area in New Arnor would be
around Annuminas and Lake Evendim, and that Bree would clearly
grow and prosper, and that there would eventually be a rush to get
primo seashore properties (already somewhat developed) when Cirdan's
lads left the Grey Havens , The Shire couldn't be economically and
politically isolated forever. For one, an economic/political alliance of the Shire and Bree would be potent.

P.S. Oh, and who would be Aragorn's governor in New Arnor and what would be his powers. In a generation or two a situation could easily arise akin to
Charlemagne's descendants.

P.P.S. Since hobbits are somewhat distant relations of Men, what about
mixed marriages of hobbits and "short people" (who certainly have the right
to live ). Perhaps hobbits evolved back into Men, aside from the remnant
JRRT tells of in modern times. Hmm?

P.P.P.S. Some of the above is rumored to be not totally serious.