Enemies

[davem]

So, I'm reading a collection of Kipling's short stories (I'd only been familiar with this writer through his children's 'Fairy' novels, Puck of Pook's Hill & Rewards & Fairies up till now, so I was unfamiliar with his reputation of 'right wing, proto-Fascist celebrator of the British Empire'). Being very impressed with the stories I today picked up a volume of his Collected Poems, & in the Introduction came across an interesting passage about one of the Barrack Room Ballads:

’E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An’, before we know, ’e’s ’ackin’ at our ’ead;
’E’s all ’ot sand an’ ginger when alive,
An’ ’e’s generally shammin’ when ’e’s dead.
’E’s a daisy, ’e’s a ducky, ’e’s a lamb!
’E’s a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
’E’s the on’y thing that doesn’t give a d**n
For a Regiment o’ British Infantree!

The marks of non-standard diction would suggest some kind of realism. It is true that a certain appreciation of a worthy opponent can be found, in favourable circumstances, among British & other soldiers, & there is a respectable tradition behind the speaker's sense of proffessional duty to give praise where praise is duue - especially tp opponents whose own military organisations do not adequately provide for public recognition & commemoration of exceptional valour.

’E ’asn’t got no papers of ’is own,
’E ’asn’t got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill ’e’s shown
In usin’ of ’is long two-’anded swords (RT Jones: Collected Poems of Rudyard Kipling)

Now, the poem itself is difficult reading in some ways - (you can read it here - but the poem is not the point of this thread. It was the point the writer made about the respect shown for the enemy - he may be an 'eathen, but by his reckless courage he broke the British Square (infantry formation in battle) & his courage was therefore deserving of both respect & commemoration.

It struck me very forcibly that the enemies encountered by the heroes in Tolkien's work are never shown as deserving of respect - the heroes never face a brave, heroic enemy who is deserving of respect for his courage & resourcefulness & self sacrifice. The enemies are cowardly, win by cheating (either overwhelming numbers or magic or trickery).

Ok, you say, the enemies are in the service of absolute evil & we shouldn't expect them to be portrayed as in any way heroic. Yet, the reality of our world is different. In wartime there are heroes & villains on both sides. I note that when Tolkien first began writing his tales & developing his languages during WWI the Germans were associated with words in Qenya (sic) for monsters & demons, but soon, even during the conflict, this changed.

So, Tolkien's heroes never face an enemy they can respect as a 'worthy opponent'. This , of course, plays up the 'good' vs 'evil' dimension, but what does effect does it have on the heroes themselves - does this constant battle against oppenents who are cruel, vicious, vindictive & evil affect the way they think of themselves? If the enemy they faced was a worthy opponent, with right (to some degree) on their own side, would this make the fight they fought both more 'honourable' & more tragic?

All through the ages of Arda the enemy the heroes face is literally 'vermin' to be eradicated.

Actually, thinking about it, the closest we come is Sam's speculation about the Southron - yet we are never told that Sam is right in his speculation.

So, enemies, & the effect the type of enemy he faces has on the hero. Would the story affect us in the same way if it was a case of two sides, both of whom are to some degree in the right, & would such a war affect the heroes - make them more doubtful of the morality of their actions?

We're told often that the Legendarium is a War Story - yet to what extent does it truly reflect war in our world - & more personally, how does it affect our perception of war generally? Are we lead down the dangerous road of thinking (even subconsciously) of our 'enemies' as Orcs, rather than as (whatever the rights & wrongs of their cause) 'heroes' in their own way, whose reckless courage may 'break the British Square' & is deserving of acknowledgement for that (if for that alone).

So, lots of questions there. Any thoughts?

[Sir Kohran]

During ROTK, aren't we told that the Southrons proudly fought to the death? They sound like 'respectable opponents', especially when one considers the cowardice of the Orcs in fleeing. Also, if they had been truly evil, then Aragorn could never had made peace with them after the war. Of ocurse, then we get a different problem - the Southrons aren't really evil - they are essentially forced to fight for Sauron. I get the impression that had they been situated nearer Gondor, they would have fought with them, instead of Sauron.

So yes, it does seem impossible to rectify the 'worthy opponent' with the selfish, crude scum that serve Sauron. Anyone else got any thoughts?

[Mithalwen]

I often think about this and it surely deeply linked with the nature of orcs and the problems that create. Killing an orc is regarded on the level of swatting a fly - less even since surely having a game in which you competed to kill the most flies would be regarded as a little tasteless. Yet somewhere I seem to remember there is a conversation between a couple of orcs about what they would like to do when the war is over which humanises them a little...

[The 1,000 Reader]

In Middle-Earth, it is the slimy, cowardly figures who cause all of the problems in the world, which is why there is no worthy opponent for the men, elves, and dwarves to fight. Orcs are disgusting things that kill each other for a shirt. The men of Harad and Rhun were convinced that Sauron was a Eru-esque god and were twisted over the ages. Therefore, Middle-Earth was far more black and white than any place, despite Gandalf's philisophical words.

[davem]

Of course - Tolkien sets up a situation where the 'bad' guys are (in most cases) irredeemably 'BAD', or deluded by Sauron. The Uruks who attack Helm's Deep are accused of 'reckless hate', not 'reckless courage'. And perhaps this is why the siege of HD fails to rise to the heights of the siege of Troy - there is no bitter & terrible conflict of Achilles & Hector. Aragorn wins, but he, & the rest of the heroes (& this is a central point, so I'll seperate it out)

have no need to feel remorse - yet it is his remorse that humanises Achilles & makes him a tragic hero rather than merely a 'superhero'. No-one ever questions the morality of the fight - because Tolkien has given us an 'easy (in the moral sense) war. Of course in such a war no-one on the 'good' side will question the morality of their actions - or even the necessity of slaughtering dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of the enemy, because the enemy deserve it, & there is nothing good to say of them. One cannot even respect their courage in defence of a wrong cause, because they are all cowards.

Does this situation actually reduce the heroes to a little more than Rent-o-kill operatives & make them a little less than fully human - they can slaughter without thought or necessity for remorse - Aragorn will never have to sit while the father of an Orc pleads to be allowed to retrieve the body of the son Aragorn hacked to pieces on the Pelennor, & Eomer will never have to choose whether or not to allow an Orc's sister to retrieve the head he stuck on a pole for proper burial.

So, our heroes can slay the enemy & never have to face the consequences of having taken a life - if only because the lives they take are not worth counting. There is no real horror or ugliness in the killing, & there is, one could argue, no moral or ethical growth in the characters because there is no necessity to question what one has done.

Yet, Tolkien had seen real war, seen real human beings riddled with bullet holes & blown apart (who knows if he himself had taken a life (or many lives)). The more I consider this the more it intrigues me.

[Raynor]

yet it is his remorse that humanises Achilles & makes him a tragic hero rather than merely a 'superhero'.

Although I really liked Achilles' story, it is nowhere near impressive as the task that Aragorn takes: the most gifted of all the living Men, going to almost certain death, so as to give humanity, what am I saying, life a second chance. Compare this to going to war to get back a wife, as a general reason, and most likely glory for himself, as was trendy among the "high heroes" of the day.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Although I really liked Achilles' story, it is nowhere near impressive as the task that Aragorn takes: the most gifted of all the living Men, going to almost certain death, so as to give humanity, what am I saying, life a second chance. Compare this to going to war to get back a wife, as a general reason, and most likely glory for himself, as was trendy among the "high heroes" of the day.

Of course - & I'm not questioning that. I'm asking about the nature of the enemies he faces. In comparing the heroes Tolkien gives with the ones Homer presents us with I'm not comparing the causes for which they fight, but the effect of the fight on them. I still think the point I made stands - Aragorn & the rest never have to question the morality of the killing they do. Their enemies are not deserving of any respect. It seems to me that while the cause for which Tolkien's heroes fight is beyond question, what they have to do to achieve it doesn't require them to ask the deep questions Homer's heroes do. Which is possibly why Homer's work has a greater air of tragedy, because it is humans slaying humans, & the sin of Cain never arises.....

EDIT

Actually, we do have such a tragedy now I think about it - the Kinslaying - the only example that leaps out to me at the moment... And there Tolkien does seem to touch the Homeric heights: and yet while it echoes down the ages, it is not really dealt with in an Achilles-Priam confrontation.....

[Raynor]

I wouldn't say that Men never fight Men, nor that these mannish enemies are always unredeemably corrupt. Some of the inhabitants of Umbar used to be numenoreans too.

Beside this, another level of drama we witness in Tolkien is that of the deceptions of the Enemy which turn humans against each other or at least against good causes - whether this the lies of Melkor/Sauron turning elves against the valar, men against elves, men against men, men to almost side with Saruman, etc. It seems that these lies are one of the most enduring weapons of evil, with some of the most tragic effects too.

Edit: I also remembered this interesting passage from Myths Transformed, which may be relevant:

...though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, [orcs] must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.* This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

* Few Orcs ever did so in the Elder Days, and at no time would any Orc treat with any Elf. For one thing Morgoth had achieved was to convince the Orcs beyond refutation that the Elves were crueller than themselves, taking captives only for 'amusement', or to eat them (as the Orcs would do at need).

[Raynor]

Actually, we do have such a tragedy now I think about it - the Kinslaying - the only example that leaps out to me at the moment... And there Tolkien does seem to touch the Homeric heights: and yet while it echoes down the ages, it is not really dealt with in an Achilles-Priam confrontation.....

There is also the kin-strife; or all the back-stabbing during the wars against Morgoth. We also have marred heroes, Turin or Hurin, who bring about evil. Turin can compete with Achilles on tragedy grounds, hands down... Another prime example of tragical friendly fire is Feanor; he almost rivals at times with Melkor in bringing about evil. The demonised heroes chain continues with his sons all the way to the end of the first age. While Tolkien doesn't make enemies more "humane", he sure does allow the full spectrum to be displayed on the good side.

[Sir Kohran]

Yet, Tolkien had seen real war, seen real human beings riddled with bullet holes & blown apart (who knows if he himself had taken a life (or many lives)).

Yet he was disgusted by it. Tolkien hated 'real war'. He hated the slaughter of men; the waste of young life; the indiscriminate killing, the spilling of fresh blood; the mutilated corpses, the rats in the trenches; the madness of the destruction; the lack of reasoning for any of it. Real war is almost by definition a terrible war.

And at the same time, the German soldiers he and his fellow Britons were fighting against were in exactly the same position - real suffering humans, not Orcs cackling at the thought of murder. They were young men just like himself, with their own hopes and fears, their own losses in the trenches; their own desparation. They showed the same qualities and bravery that Tolkien and his own men believed in. They were, essentially, the worthy opponents davem has described.

So when Tolkien was creating his own war, he wanted a 'good' war - a war with clear objectives; fought for the right reasons; clear-cut heroes that knew what they had to do; brave actions everywhere; leaders that struggled alongside their comrades; men fighting and even dying for a better future. But none of this could work if the enemy were equal, 'worthy' opponents - if Aragorn had to kill Orcs weeping for their mothers, whilst archers mowed down desperate, helpless enemies in their thousands, as wounded, moaning half-Orcs were executed out of pity by the Rohirrim, as Legolas found a diary on an Uruk's decapitated body, and Gimli found a wedding ring on a Troll he hacked apart, then the war would lose all sense of 'goodness' - it would just be a fantasized version of the real war Tolkien hated so much.

So Tolkien gave it a more controversial spin - he made the enemies not just opposing forces but actual bad guys, who enjoyed killing and burning and were grotesque parodies of the heroes he idolized. It was acceptable to kill these monsters because it was right to - they were evil, malicious beasts who invaded innocent and normally peaceful people. Tolkien wanted to show that some wars were right - and also that wars should only happen when there is a good reason to - in this case, to bring down the evil, dominating Sauron. Otherwise, Gondorians and Rohirrim and British and Germans should all live happily in peace.

But wait! - there is an anomaly. What of the Southrons, the humans who were forced to march far from their homes and families to fight on a foreign field for a lord they maybe feared or even hated, and yet even then still made an honourable show of themselves, going down fighting? They sound exactly like the Germans of the real world, and Sam's bitter and sad thoughts on the slain Southron are all the more relevant and tragic because of it. To me, they repesent the Germans - the worthy opponents that should not really be suffering; that were going through the same torment as the 'good' soldiers. Tolkien was showing that even his 'idealized' war wasn't perfect - that no matter how right and justifiable any conflict is, it is still a conflict and so people on both sides will suffer, and that is the true tragedy of war.

[Lalwendë]

I believe there are a few instances where Tolkien himself questions how he has portrayed the slaughter of the Orcs in his Letters, and he did a few revisions over the matter. I often feel that his inclusion of the friendly conversation between the two Orcs at Cirith Ungol was possibly an attempt by him to 'humanise' them a little, in contrast to all this bloodthirsty 'hacking and slashing' he was writing about. In regard to enemies who were Men, there is also the instance where Aragorn requests that the slain Dunlendings are buried appropriately and with respect following the Battle of Helms Deep.

So it's not all black and white.

But yes, there is immense slaughter of Orcs and no, they are not described as being particularly skilled or respected fighters/opponents (despite them clearly being more advanced in warfare, having knowledge of ballistics and rudimentary bombs - although maybe this is portrayed as a 'bad thing' by Tolkien?).

Why? One reason is that as a writer creating huge epic battles Tolkien was inevitably going to have to write about lots of death, and death involving the enemy, and he was also going to have to justify that slaughter to his readers. Tolkien was not stupid, and he knew about war. He was in a war that became widely questioned on whether it was 'moral', he wrote LotR at the time when Dresden happened, when Hiroshima & Nagasaki happened. He knew his readers would inevitably question widespread slaughter. This may explain why his Orcs are so often protrayed as one-dimensional characters, mere evil beings with a blood lust. They are almost like pantomime villains we can sit and go "Boo! Hiss!" at. In order to justify what he writes about, he has to make these Orcs seem as bad as is possible - thoroughly inhuman, even going beyond real life 'enemies' we have known in war and tyranny. That's why the Orcs are never given any 'respect' - it has to be that way or us modern readers wouldn't accept it.

Another reason is that Tolkien is writing about the heat of war. And this is not modern war. In modern war, under the Geneva convention, an army simply cannot do unspeakable things to the dead, the wounded, the captured (well, they do, but the media and the UN will have them over hot coals quite rightly). In older wars, torture and bloodthirsty slaughter was often the norm; I'm thinking here of the mythical zeal and fervour of renowned armies such as those of Boudicca or the viking raiders, for whom death would only be a reward (which brings to mind the attitude of the Rohirrim in battle) and who were able to enter into states of frenzy during battle. But even in modern times, armies don't sit there thinking of the enemy forces as being all cuddly! A certain amount of 'whipping up' is carried out, some propaganda, some team spirit about winning over this enemy. Maybe this is an inevitability as we are reading about one side only in this war of Tolkien's? We only see the enemy as they see them? Note that the instance where we hear the Orcs chatting in a friendly way is overheard by Frodo and Sam, well out of the heat of war; they have no reason to be whipped into an Orc-hating frenzy.

[davem]

Of course, Sir Kohran makes a valid point about the kind of war Tolkien portrayed. Yet it means that we never see the enemies praised for their heroics, or hear songs made commemorating them. And, as I said, the heroes never have to face the consequences of the slaughter they inflict.

So, do the heroes get off easy - of course they put their lives on the line - but they never (from a Christian perspective) endanger their immortal souls - everyone they kill deserves it, & they enemies are, as I say, cowards for whom the reader can feel no sympathy?

One cannot see the M-e equivalent of a Kipling producing a song praising the courage of the enemy - which, in a way, lessens the 'heroics' of the heroes, & reduces the tragedy of the outcome, because there are no tragic heroes among the fallen to be mourned either by the heroes or the reader. Even the human enemies we have in LotR are mentioned only in passing (the Southrons & Easterlings may go down fighting couragously, but this only confirms their delusion - no enemy fights couragously for his side because he believes it is right unless he is deluded).

There is no mutual respect - which is something we do find among warriors in many conflicts - mutual suffering leads to a kind of empathy & respect for a fellow warrior. As I say, we find this in Homer (& in the Mahabharata come to that). Yet it is absent from Tolkien from what I can see. And so far, no-one has addressed the question of whether this 'lessens' the heroes, in that they never have to face any difficult moral questions regarding the rightness of the cause - or at least the rightness of their actions.

So, was Tolkien copping out?

EDIT

And the other thing:

’E ’asn’t got no papers of ’is own,
’E ’asn’t got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill ’e’s shown
In usin’ of ’is long two-’anded swords

The other 'obligation, if you will - the necessity to record the courage of the enemy in situations where his own people will not or cannot- who will record the heroism of the Southrons & Easterlings - even if it was for the wrong cause?

[The 1,000 Reader]

As for the orcs of Cirith Ungol you speak of, especially Gorbag and Shagrat...



They killed themselves brutally over a shirt. A freakin' shirt. They aren't as normal and human as you'd think.

[Raynor]

One cannot see the M-e equivalent of a Kipling producing a song praising the courage of the enemy - which, in a way, lessens the 'heroics' of the heroes, & reduces the tragedy of the outcome, because there are no tragic heroes among the fallen to be mourned either by the heroes or the reader.

It depends who the enemy is. You reffered to the kin-slaying; there is also the burning of ships at Losgar and "few of the deeds of the Noldor thereafter surpassed that desperate crossing [of Helcaraxe] in hardihood or woe. And still, there were songs about Feanor and his courrage. We also have the guards who Beregond slays; true, it is for a good cause, but it is a dire action, which prompts Aragorn, to an extent, to bannish him from the city. There is also an interesting remark by Tolkien concerning dramatisations who pictured willowman was in alliance with Mordor:

Originally Posted by Letter #175

Cannot people imagine things hostile to men and hobbits who prey on them without being in league with the Devil!

We shouldn't restrict our definition of enemies in M E only to those fighting under Sauron/Melkor. Some of them are among the good ranks, while others "in the middle", if I may say so.

the Southrons & Easterlings may go down fighting couragously, but this only confirms their delusion - no enemy fights couragously for his side because he believes it is right unless he is deluded

I don't think they were figthing for any cause at that moment; it was a fight for their lives. It may have been a mistake to put them in that situation; some treaties on war recommend that an enemy should never be put in a situation without escape, or else he will fight fiercely (though, for the same reason, the Art of war recommends putting one's own soldier in that position).

[Hookbill the Goomba]

It seems to me that some enemies such as Orcs which are killed in such great numbers cannot be given any greatness else it would make the protagonists seem monstrous or something. Then there are some of the 'greater' enemies, such as Melkor, Sauron, Saruman etc...

Saruman especially. Gandalf and others admit that he is deserving of at least some respect, he was once great and good. But the terrible deeds he wrought seem to over shadow his once great nature and all his goodness is seen through the 'lens' if you will, of his later works. Again, look at Melkor, one of the 'great' of the Valar, we know of few good deeds he has done and only of some of the horrific things he did.

I think it is the ruthless nature and manner of the enemies that causes the lack of respect. In Peter Jackson's films, if I may be so bold as to use an example, at the Battle of Helm's Deep, Aragorn says words to the effect of 'Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none' and I think there may be a point here. As the Uruks are taking Merry and Pippin away, Legolas observes that they seem to delight in destroying all living things, even if they are not in their way.

Gandalf's treatment of Saruman in their confrontation at the end of The Two Towers, I think, indicates that there was still some respect, perhaps born out of fear. He tells them that his voice is still powerful and that they should not underestimate him. The Ents refuse to keep Saruman locked up, they hate to see any creature imprisoned but there is a sort of respect for him, at least that is the impression I got.

So... yes I think there is some respect for some of the enemies... but not a lot.

[Raynor]

Gandalf and others admit that he is deserving of at least some respect, he was once great and good.

I would particulary note Frodo here:

Originally Posted by Scouring of the Shire, RotK

Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me. And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.

As the Uruks are taking Merry and Pippin away, Legolas observes that they seem to delight in destroying all living things, even if they are not in their way.

Unnecessary destruction of things, as a foremost evil activity of some boy bands, forces Borlas, a character in The New Shadow, to compare such perpetrators to orcs, who had similar delights.

[Lalwendë]

Hookbill, good example with Saruman there, and to that I'll also add the treatment and respect offered to the Mouth of Sauron.

But does this suggest that the leaders got respect whereas the foot soldiers did not? That's quite different in many ways to treatment of enemies in real life - my father told me the Italian and German PoWs brought over here to be interned and eventually to work (some worked under my grandfather), were treated very well; the leaders on the other hand faced the Nuremberg Trials and execution.

Or is it to do with race? Enemy Men seem to be well treated, even at times respected (e.g. Aragorn's request that the Dunlendings be properly buried) but enemy Orcs certainly do not.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Or is it to do with race? Enemy Men seem to be well treated, even at times respected (e.g. Aragorn's request that the Dunlendings be properly buried) but enemy Orcs certainly do not.

Still, at least in HoMe, Tolkien considers the possibility that orcs could ask for mercy and have it granted to them. The italics are mine.

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded. Morgoth's Ring, HoMe X, 419

Right now, we have an RPG going on in Rohan whose whole purpose is to consider the possibility that JRRT raised in the above quote concerning orcs. This is set in the Fourth Age. I am not sure what the outcome of that story will be, but my gut feeling is that there will be a softening of the image (ever so slightly) that Tolkien left us with.

That's probably because, like davem and some others, I have at least some questions about having a particular group portrayed in such stark terms, even if they are enemies. It just doesn't feel comfortable. I guess if someone gave me a group of creatures and said they were "demons" or some other supernatural horror, I could accept that. But if you tell me that these beings originally carried the blood of men or elves, even if corrupted, I have a hard time seeing things in such black and white terms. I guess I've come to the point where I can at least admit the possibility of a exception within my own mind. (Heresy, I know. )

[Raynor]

I would say that the best explanation for the treatment of the orcs is that the prevalent idea of their nature that Tolkien entertained during the writting of LotR is that they have no fea, and thus are mere beasts. The article Orcs from Myths Transformed is dated about 1959, although, true enough, in 1954 he considered them, in a letter to Peter Hastings, as a race of rational incarnate. Also, first-generation orcs, who were humans and became corrupted, would have a fea, unless being an orc means a separation of fea and hroa... Well, I know this theory has holes in it, but I think that it can best explain their treatment in the LotR.

[davem]

I don't disagree with the simple fact that Orcs are cowardly, vicious, cruel, verminous, & all the rest. Its the absence of noble enemies that intrigues me most. The heroes never face a noble opponent, are never faced with killing an 'equal'.

Or let's pursue Child's line - could there possibly have been 'brave', self-sacrificing Orcs? Or Dunlendings, Southrons, Easterlings? Men who fought heroically, laying down their lives for their comrades... they may have been on the wrong side, but their deeds proved worthy of a song? Or let's consider a combat between Aragorn & an Haradrim warrior on the Pelennor - one who goes down fighting, or one who puts himself between a group of Rohirrim & his Lord.

Or do the 'rules' of Tolkien's world make such a thing a logical impossibility? And how would we react? What about a f'rinstance - a young man from Harad is swept up by tales of war in the North West, his lord is going to fight for his Master (Sauron), & the young man swears an oath of service & rides off proudly to fight the 'evil' Gondorians. On the battlefield he comes face to face with Aragorn or Eomer, fights to defend his fallen lord & is slain.

Is that possible in Tolkien's world, or must Haradrim all be evil, stupid, deluded & of a kind who if they fight courageously it is only for their own survival? Can we imagine such a warrior as I've described - or would that 'break the rules'? And can we imagine that young man being mentioned with respect not, obviously, for the cause he fought for, but for his heroism in defence of one he loved? Can we imagine one of our heroes praising his courage, or the courage of his comrades for standing in the face of the Rohirrim's charge? Or maybe there were such courageous individuals among the enemy, but they were not 'mentioned in dispatches' by the Bards & so their heroism & self sacrifice were forgotten

And if we can't, if all the enemy are cowards, & the heroes are merely taking part in 'vermin control' does that in any way 'lessen' them?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

As for the orcs of Cirith Ungol you speak of, especially Gorbag and Shagrat...



They killed themselves brutally over a shirt. A freakin' shirt. They aren't as normal and human as you'd think.

A shirt of mithril mail worth "the price of the Shire" and more. Money is a pretty common motive for murder in the human world.....

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Hookbill, good example with Saruman there, and to that I'll also add the treatment and respect offered to the Mouth of Sauron.

Gandalf seems to have an amusing confrontation with The Mouth of Sauron and keeps bringing up the point of the 'rules of Mordor' as it were being different to elsewhere. The Mouth claims that he is an emissary and cannot be assailed and Gandalf retorts, "Where such laws hold, it is also custom for ambassadors to use less insolence." There seems to be a general acceptance that Mordor has been so corrupted that it is beyond respect, perhaps. Remember Gollum's reply to Sam saying, "It must be about tea time, at least in decent places where there is a tea time."
"We aren't in decent places!"

[Raynor]

I think that an issue mentioned in another thread is useful here too, the two different scales of morality mentioned by Tolkien in letter #246 in regards to judging Frodo: representing to ourselves the absolute ideal without compromise, and applying a scale tempered by mercy to others.

Concerning the second scale, the most relevant example is Gollum. Of him, the professor says in letter #181:

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Even concerning him, one of the greatest lessons of the story is that the heroes must show pity:

- He deserves death.

- Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it...My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least.

Gandalf applies in an admirable way the second scale of morality to Gollum, he is tempered in his judgement by pity, just as Bilbo and Frodo are tempered in action by it, even when their lives (and quests) were in danger.

However, I doubt that either Frodo, Bilbo or Gandalf would have hesitated to confront Gollum to the end, if doing otherwise would have meant certain, immediate harm to someone. And I believe this was the case with many of the orcs or other enemies. One can't pacify them, not even at the cost of one's life; direct confrontation remains the only way on a battle field, if lives are to be saved.

[davem]

Something just occurred to me. I've been thinking about a couple of films - Braveheart & Zulu.

If we compare the way the 'enemy' is depicted in each film we see something very different. In Braveheart the enemy (the English) are two dimensional pantomine villains, & we never get the sense that they are real complex human beings. They are little better than Orcs. They exist in order to be killed & there is never any sense that they have feelings or that there is any tragedy in their deaths.

In Zulu on the other hand we encounter the Zulus before the British soldiers. We see the Zulus at a celebration & see them as human beings with a culture. Even during the battle of Rourke's Drift we never forget that they are people, & in one of the final scenes they are shown, as one of the Boer officers states 'saluting fellow braves'. The piled bodies of the Zulu warriors are viewed with horror by the British officers & one tells the other that he couldn't go through such a horror more than once.

The terrible nature of the slaughter is brought home in Zulu because we have seen that the Zulu warriors are human beings right from the start of the movie, whereas in Braveheart the slaughter of the English is seen as morally unquestionable, & killing the enemy is killing 'sub-humans'. Interestingly, I read that Gibson's Wallace was not shown killing the deer he is about to shoot because that might seem 'cruel' to an audience - because the deer was beautiful & 'innocent'.

Now, Tolkien's work seems to take a 'Braveheartian' approach to the enemy, rather than a 'Zulu-ian' one. And to me Zulu comes across as a more powerful & moving piece of work that Braveheart precisely because the British are shown killing human beings & being 'forced' to acknowledge the horror of what they have done - even though it was necessary for their own survival. The British acknowledge the horror of their act, & the Zulus salute them as 'fellow braves'. There is an acknowledgement of a shared humanity - even though they have been killing each other, each side seeking to wipe out the other. Braveheart ends with jubilation in slaughter inflicted, Zulu in horror at the same thing. The British troops feel tired & sick & are just glad its over.

Which brings up another question. History is not simply written by the winners, but in the main by the 'establishment', & one wonders whether the ordinary 'grunts' on the battlefield did feel a 'respect' for the enemy warriors (even perhaps for the Orcs) - one can't help thinking back to the football match across No-man's land in WWI between British & German troops - not that one could imagine such a thing happening in M-e. But could there have been instances of Gondorian Rangers giving a nodding respect to the 'reckless courage' of the foes they faced - they were the enemy, but they put up an awesome fight.

Or would that 'break the rules' in making the servants of the enemy in some degree 'respectable'? So, it seems that one aspect of war does not enter into Tolkien's work at any point - respect for 'fellow braves'. But Tolkien himself must have felt that - he does state, after all, that there were good & bad on both sides in WWI.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

A shirt of mithril mail worth "the price of the Shire" and more. Money is a pretty common motive for murder in the human world.....

All valuables in Mordor go to Sauron, and Mordor has no economy anyway. Counting the fact that Sauron looted many dwarven citites (or at least Moria) dry, mithril was useless in Mordor. They killed themselves, everybody did, for one, useless shirt. In the end, orcs are just stupid and savage.

[Rhod the Red]

"mentioned by Tolkien in letter #246" Nevermind the letters, we're interested in the book. Letters for drafting are hardly good sources except ot look at background, which is not the topic.

[Raynor]

Nevermind the letters, we're interested in the book.

May I ask who is "we" in the first place?

Anyway, is there anything in the "books" or anywhere else which contradicts or invalidates what Tolkien said there?

[Rhod the Red]

"May I ask who is "we" in the first place?"

Other posters in this board, logically.

"is there anything in the "books" or anywhere else which contradicts or invalidates what Tolkien said there?"

What you say, you're the one posting fiats on what the truth is about these significant parts of British literature

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

All valuables in Mordor go to Sauron, and Mordor has no economy anyway. Counting the fact that Sauron looted many dwarven citites (or at least Moria) dry, mithril was useless in Mordor. They killed themselves, everybody did, for one, useless shirt. In the end, orcs are just stupid and savage.

Not really, as even if the shirt would go to Sauron, imagine the privilege that might be bestowed on you for taking him such a priceless item? And bear in mind that these Orcs were seen not long before discussing the possibility of retirement, of being far from battle and being independent of Sauron - bringing him a shirt like that might make that possibility very real.

Originally Posted by Child

That's probably because, like davem and some others, I have at least some questions about having a particular group portrayed in such stark terms, even if they are enemies. It just doesn't feel comfortable. I guess if someone gave me a group of creatures and said they were "demons" or some other supernatural horror, I could accept that. But if you tell me that these beings originally carried the blood of men or elves, even if corrupted, I have a hard time seeing things in such black and white terms. I guess I've come to the point where I can at least admit the possibility of a exception within my own mind. (Heresy, I know. )

I don't think Tolkien himself always saw them in black and white terms, especially given the incident mentioned above which he saw the need to insert into the text. So I still think its not quite as extreme as davem points out, yet they are given little respect as fighters and warriors. Not giving them respect in that way doesn't preclude us (or Tolkien) from offering some glimpses of compassion or understanding of them as people. I think what davem is bringing up could be down to the manner of their fighting - why would anyone respect an enemy fighter if that enemy fought 'dirty'? You see it in sport - the losing team/competitor is lauded if they play well, but if they cheat they are villified. Think about Maradona. Would he ever dare to enter England after the handball incident? perhaos it's that if the enemy is simply not 'sporting' then he loses all respect? And Tolkien was a sportsman, so that concept would ahve been importnat to him.

[davem]

But the question remains – what effect does the absence of a noble enemy have on Tolkien's heroes? Why did Tolkien omit the noble foe, the 'fellow brave', & if such figures had existed would we have had a different, more complex tale?

Does a hero need a noble foe in order to enhance his own nobility & the tragedy of his fate – does such a foe bring out his humanity?

In one of the Taliesin poems Charles Williams describes a fight to the death between Taliesin & King Cradlemas – a monstrous dictator. Taliesin kills Cradlemas in a fair fight & even though he had had no option – he was fighting for his life & to liberate Arthur's people, yet still Taliesin agonises over what he has done – Williams states 'He (Taliesin) & Cain had one immingled brain'. Taliesin has taken a life & has therefore 'sinned' – even if the cause was just. Tolkien's heroes never agonise in this way – of course, Turin regrets slaying an innocent man, & Frodo seeks to forbid the killing of Saruman, yet there is never any real sense that killing an enemy is morally questionable - & this is, it seems to me, because of the kind of enemies Tolkien provides his heroes with. Its ok to kill the enemy en masse, because the enemy is not noble or courageous. The hero never has to question the morality of what he is doing. Does this prevent his moral growth?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Not really, as even if the shirt would go to Sauron, imagine the privilege that might be bestowed on you for taking him such a priceless item?

I don't think that any orc could claim some special merit about the shirt, esspecially if said orc would own the shirt as a result of a fight, therefore disobedience. Moreover, it would look like only Shagrat was the one in touch with Lugburz, as he is the one who actually brings the shirt to Sauron (and is, well, slain, as quoted in the LotR Companion).

Originally Posted by davem

The hero never has to question the morality of what he is doing. Does this prevent his moral growth?

Killing does affect one's status. In Quendi and Eldar, it is stated that:

Originally Posted by Aelfwine's preamble, HoME X

And the Eldar deemed that the dealing of death, even when lawful or under necessity, diminished the power of healing, and that the virtue of the nissi in this matter was due rather to their abstaining from hunting or war than to any special power that went with their womanhood. Indeed in dire straits or desperate defence, the nissi fought valiantly, and there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals. On the other hand many elven-men were great healers and skilled in the lore of living bodies, though such men abstained from hunting, and went not to war until the last need.

Healers have been persons of good, if not great, spiritual status in most cultures. Even in Middle Earth, we see Elrond, one of the highest standing elves, being a renowend healer. Aragorn, as arguable the most gifted Man, was a healer too (and the above quote is relevant for him esspecially, seeing he has elven blood). The least we can derrive from the above quote is that killing affects one's ability to heal, and if a special gift like healing is in fact a sign of one's spiritual status, then it follows that killing affects a person deeply.

[Rhod the Red]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Not really, as even if the shirt would go to Sauron, imagine the privilege that might be bestowed on you for taking him such a priceless item? And bear in mind that these Orcs were seen not long before discussing the possibility of retirement, of being far from battle and being independent of Sauron - bringing him a shirt like that might make that possibility very real.



I don't think Tolkien himself always saw them in black and white terms, especially given the incident mentioned above which he saw the need to insert into the text. So I still think its not quite as extreme as davem points out, yet they are given little respect as fighters and warriors. Not giving them respect in that way doesn't preclude us (or Tolkien) from offering some glimpses of compassion or understanding of them as people. I think what davem is bringing up could be down to the manner of their fighting - why would anyone respect an enemy fighter if that enemy fought 'dirty'? You see it in sport - the losing team/competitor is lauded if they play well, but if they cheat they are villified. Think about Maradona. Would he ever dare to enter England after the handball incident? perhaos it's that if the enemy is simply not 'sporting' then he loses all respect? And Tolkien was a sportsman, so that concept would ahve been importnat to him.

Thanks, very interesting!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't think that any orc could claim some special merit about the shirt, esspecially if said orc would own the shirt as a result of a fight, therefore disobedience. Moreover, it would look like only Shagrat was the one in touch with Lugburz, as he is the one who actually brings the shirt to Sauron (and is, well, slain, as quoted in the LotR Companion).

Sauron wouldn't care for such matters if he got that particular trinket. And Orcs would not be above a little lying - maybe a tall tale about an almighty struggle would only add to the glory. And even if Sauron did decide he was going to punish the "smug returning Orc with prize" for his disobedience, then that Orc wouldn't know that, he would assume he could easily get away with a small lie about something which happened in an out of the way corner of Mordor. Ultimately, Sauron wouldn't care:

And Orcs, they were useful slaves, but he had them in plenty. If now and again Shelob caught them to stay her appetite, she was welcome: he could spare them.

But that's not really part of this discussion. What I came here for was the following...

I thought I'd go back to The Choices of Master Samwise and that Orc chat to see what I could glean.

There's an interesting point about enemies and how they see one another:

And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. But don't forget: the enemies don't love us any more than they love Him, and if they get topsides on Him, we're done too.

These Orcs fully recognise that they are soldiers with a leader who is in control, but he is not in total control of them; they are not mindless 'slaves' as they are fully aware of their position and know of the possibility of independence. They even feel some resentment that it is them doing the fighting and not their leader (a common complaint amongst soldiers, and note how a leader who actively fights is all the more glorious and revered for it - in Tolkien's work you'll find: Aragorn, Eomer, Theoden. Outside: Sharpe, Nelson). Here Tolkien is showing us these enemy Orcs as being like any other soldier. He also shows us how the Orcs recognise that despite their feelings of resentment, they have to stay onside as their enemies will also show them no quarter; not only do they have to stay onside but they have to ensure that the 'boss' they resent will win the whole war. There's a message about War in that - if enemies cannot show some mercy to one another then it only serves to make them hate each other more and fight all the harder.

So then I was thinking about how the Orcs perceive their enemies, seeing as we're purely going on how the West see theirs, and we might find some illumination looking at it from the other perspective. Well we're lucky in that Tolkien tells us something of this in The Choices of Master Samwise:

"It's my guess you won't find much in that little fellow," said Gorbag. "He may have had nothing to do with the real mischief. The big fellow with the sharp sword doesn't seem to have thought him worth much anyhow--just left him lying: regular elvish trick."

Obviously they don't think highly of their enemy just as the West don't think highly of Sauron's forces, which is understandable. There's no equivalent of "Hug A Hoodie" in War. But this instance tells us that the Orcs believe the Elves to have a 'regular trick', i.e. typical behaviour. And that's to leave a fallen comrade when they have bigger goals to pursue. I wonder if there are any actual instances of this - the Elves are certainly not whiter than white. Even if Elves don't and never have done anything like this before, this is the perception of them that Orcs have.

So are the Orcs any better about fallen comrades?

D'you remember old Ufthak? We lost him for days. Then we found him in a corner; hanging up he was, but he was wide awake and glaring. How we laughed! She'd forgotten him, maybe, but we didn't touch him--no good interfering with Her.

They laugh when they find their comrade Ufthak strung up in Shelob's lair, possibly as he looks amusing (they may just have a dark sense of humour), possibly out of malice towards him. But he had been 'lost' which means he was missed, and it seems they could have been looking for him. The crucial point is why they leave him there and don't rescue him. Something to do with their understanding of Shelob, of not 'interfering'. She is intelligent and may seek revenge for her prey going missing? Leaving him there means one of them won't be eaten in turn? Anyway, what this suggests to me is that the Orcs are not always sporting. It's just not fair to leave a colleague strung up to be eaten, is it? That's an instance of Tolkien showing us that these Orcs are simply not sporting, that what they do is "Not Cricket".

I found another interesting bit in the discussion in this chapter too. That the Orcs themselves are afraid of the Nazgul, frightened of what they can do:

Those Nazgul give me the creeps. And they skin the body off you as soon as look at you, and leave you all cold in the dark on the other side. But He likes 'em; they're His favourites nowadays, so it's no use grumbling. I tell you, it's no game serving down in the city.

That's shockingly similar to what the Witch-King says to Eowyn, so it must be a very real threat, a real possibility. So the Orcs are very much 'whole' beings, and there is a possibility that their fea can be left naked and exposed - if they descend from Elves this would be possible by 'killing' them and then denying access to the Halls of Mandos; if they descend from Men it would be an abomination against Men's true nature. Anyway, that's not the point right now. The point is that Tolkien is possibly showing us there are different degrees of 'darkness', that even Orcs are frightened of something, even they are subject to the whims of the Nazgul and can be (and presumably sometimes are) hurt by them.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Sauron wouldn't care for such matters if he got that particular trinket. And Orcs would not be above a little lying - maybe a tall tale about an almighty struggle would only add to the glory. And even if Sauron did decide he was going to punish the "smug returning Orc with prize" for his disobedience, then that Orc wouldn't know that, he would assume he could easily get away with a small lie about something which happened in an out of the way corner of Mordor. Ultimately, Sauron wouldn't care:

Well, while we are at discussing orcs... I think there are way too many risks for an orc to undertake all these risks, with little chance of any reward in sight. As you say, Sauron doesn't care about them. They would have to risk their lives in fighting comrades and their boss, then make it to Lugburz and bet that Sauron won't catch their lie and hope that Sauron won't become suspicious and not kill them, but actually reward them. I don't buy it. It is simpler to assume they wanted the shirt for themselves.

Originally Posted by Lal

The crucial point is why they leave him there and don't rescue him. Something to do with their understanding of Shelob, of not 'interfering'. She is intelligent and may seek revenge for her prey going missing? Leaving him there means one of them won't be eaten in turn? Anyway, what this suggests to me is that the Orcs are not always sporting.

I would say there is some sort of co-existence between Sauron and Shelob, and they recognize it and support it. However, it would have been more practical for them to save a comrade, esspecially if she forgot about him, and just bring something else there. But it may be that the whole perversity of the situation delighted them too much to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Lal

That's shockingly similar to what the Witch-King says to Eowyn, so it must be a very real threat, a real possibility. So the Orcs are very much 'whole' beings, and there is a possibility that their fea can be left naked and exposed

I doubt the witch-king has such a power. There would have been some account of it, somewhere, in Arnor or at the Pellenor Fields. I am sure he would have used it as a propaganda stunt. It looks like a "myth", a cursing threat, to demoralise those who would oppose him. And even if he had it, I have doubts we can't surmise from a threat only that orcs do actually have a soul; the way the orc says it, he might have experienced himself the cold look, and felt terrified - fear was the witch-king's (and the nagul)'s main weapon. And if one is left cold in the dark on the other side, then one cannot come back and relate the whole thing .

Originally Posted by Lal

The point is that Tolkien is possibly showing us there are different degrees of 'darkness', that even Orcs are frightened of something, even they are subject to the whims of the Nazgul and can be (and presumably sometimes are) hurt by them.

I agree.

[Bêthberry]

Orcs are not the only enemies in LotR. There is one small, very brief use of former enemies (victims?)--"noble foe"--which comes close to this sense of honourable opponent: Ghân-buri-Ghân and the Woses.

As a condition of aiding the battle against the orcs, Ghân-buri-Ghân asks the Rohirrim not to hunt the Wild Men any more as if they were beasts. Certainly the depiction of their language suggests that these people lack the beauty and eloquence (and hence, purity and goodness, as these qualities are most often related in Tolkien) of the elves and Men. Yet there is granted to the Woses a grudging respect because of the aid they deliver in the battle against the Dark Side.

The attitude towards the Woses' language skips along the edge of patronising linguistic patronage superiority--one could almost see similarities between Tolkien's attitude and that most often ascribed to Kipling in his linguistic depictions--but it is rather intriguing that Tolkien works this situation into the larger battle scheme. The Woses are a very small aside but this incident seems to reflect Tolkien's way of making his depiction more complex and less absolute than the larger "big picture" of the battle suggests. It's as if he cedes that the "noble and honourable" side have their own errors, faults and failings while granting to those who have suffered under the terror of Men the dignity and worth and valour which Men and elves are supposed to uphold.

[Raynor]

The Woses are a very small aside but this incident seems to reflect Tolkien's way of making his depiction more complex and less absolute than the larger "big picture" of the battle suggests. It's as if he cedes that the "noble and honourable" side have their own errors, faults and failings while granting to those who have suffered under the terror of Men the dignity and worth and valour which Men and elves are supposed to uphold.

Well put! I would also note that the situation is more tragic as the Woses were on the good side in the war of wrath and were eligible to become Numenoreans themselves. Instead, they preserved their status, and perhaps their goodness moreso. A speculation I made a while ago is that they too were enhanced by Eonwe for their deeds, as it may seem from their use of magic.

[Nogrod]

Very interesting indeed!

There would have been the tradition for Tolkien to follow...

I remember reading from somewhere a long time ago that Caesar (in his De Bello Gallico) used to overexaggerate not only the numbers of the Gauls he fought but also their fiercness and bravery in battle to make his own victories look better.

If one looks at the medieval hero-stories like the Song of Roland or the stories of the crusades (Salahadin especially!), there also seems to be this opponent worth of opposing who really tests the hero's bravery and makes his glory ever greater. And in the case of Salahadin the enemy is even given some due renown of actually beating the heroes.

So what is different with Tolkien then?

Originally Posted by Davem

But the question remains – what effect does the absence of a noble enemy have on Tolkien's heroes? Why did Tolkien omit the noble foe, the 'fellow brave', & if such figures had existed would we have had a different, more complex tale?
-----
Its ok to kill the enemy en masse, because the enemy is not noble or courageous. The hero never has to question the morality of what he is doing. Does this prevent his moral growth?

The most straightforward answer - and thence probably not the best or most fruitful - might allude to his experiences in WW1. Sir Kohran had a few really good points on this. But as I said I'm not quite happy with that even if killing of unknown "units of the faceless enemy" would have been the great shock of that war for those who were forced to participate in it.

Somehow it looks like numbness in front of violence, a denial for any dignity given to those on the "other side". Getting numb is possibly the only way to survive terrible enough experiences. But such a romantic and not giving any gallant enemies for our heroes to beat? It would have been the tradition, it would have made the heroes more valiant and their cause & morals somehow more intricate and still he did not go for it.

The nameless and numerous pawns of evil (corrupted or forced) it then is that the prof saw the last heroes fighting their ungallant battle until the great times ended and the time of men began - with no valour or virtues but just numbers and non-identity. So the WW1 is still lurking here?

And if it is, it sounds pretty sad and depressing world that was the one he was looking at.

[davem]

Ok, I take Bb's point re the Woses - yet the Woses are never really seen as 'foes' by the Rohirrim. Up till the War of the Ring they are seen as little better than animals to be hunted, & after they offer their service they become allies. At no point are they 'noble foes' (one would have to class them as 'noble savages').

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Somehow it looks like numbness in front of violence, a denial for any dignity given to those on the "other side". Getting numb is possibly the only way to survive terrible enough experiences. But such a romantic and not giving any gallant enemies for our heroes to beat? It would have been the tradition, it would have made the heroes more valiant and their cause & morals somehow more intricate and still he did not go for it.

This is the point I've been struggling to get across. Of course the question is begged as to whether the enemies (or some of them at least) were noble warrors, deserving of respect, but this was denied by the victors. Of course, that would be too difficult to accept, as it would basically make the heroes liars. So we are left with the simpler explanation - those on the other side are all cowards, cruel, vicious & deserving only of death. And yet

Aragorn pardons his (human) foes & accepts (or conscripts) them into the Commonwealth of Gondor. Why does he do this? Is it simply because they are Humans, & he feels (in Kipling's phrase) the 'White Man's Burden' & that it is his obligation to 'civilise' the 'savages' - or could it be that they are deemed worthy in some way to be included - they actually did display courage, albeit in a wrong cause, & Aragorn deemed them worthy of respect for their actions not simply for their genetics?

Yet if so, why is this not mentioned anywhere in the text? So Tolkien, writing an 'Epic Romance' excludes one of the central themes in Romance literature. One could cite Palomedes, the Saracen Knight in Malory - he is Tristan's rival for Iseult, & comes up against most of the Round Table Knights, yet he is a 'noble enemy'.

Nogrod makes a very interesting point - a noble foe ennobles a hero (is ennobles a word? Perhaps 'embiggens' .... ).

It is interesting to ponder what, if anything, is lost by this absence. Would Aragorn be a greater hero (or at the least a greater Man) if he had fought against a foe as honourable as he himself?

And yet, that would have been impossible given the kind of tale Tolkien was telling - but that brings up another question - what kind of tale was he telling? He denies it is an allegory, & 'prefers history, real or feigned', yet can we think of any historical conflict where one side was made up entirely of vicious cowards with no moral value system - doesn't this actually conflict with what we know of human nature? One cannot hold up the Nazis as heroes, yet there were individual German soldiers who performed acts of bravery, & commanders like Rommel were highly respected for their tactical skill & personal courage. In fact, we often see German soldiers at British commemorations of WWII. The leaders of Nazi Germany are obviously condemned, yet the ordinary troops are accepted as 'fellow braves'.

Now, none of this requires the heroes to like their enemy, it is about respect for the foe, because in a sense warriors share experiences that non combatants cannot know anything of - they have both suffered hardship & loss of comrades & 'speak a common language'. Yet Tolkien, the veteran, who must have known this very 'respect' for the foe, omits it entirely from his work. In various of the Letters he states that there are good & bad men on both sides in war - yet not in any of the wars he depicts.

I wonder if he felt restricted by the type of story he was telling - a noble enemy (even one or two) would have reflected a faint light of 'nobility' on the enemy's cause - & he couldn't risk such a thing, so the nature of the enemy is dictated by the nature of the tale, but one has to ask whether the tale itself & the heroes it tells of are in some way 'diminished'?

[Raynor]

I wonder if he felt restricted by the type of story he was telling - a noble enemy (even one or two) would have reflected a faint light of 'nobility' on the enemy's cause - & he couldn't risk such a thing, so the nature of the enemy is dictated by the nature of the tale, but one has to ask whether the tale itself & the heroes it tells of are in some way 'diminished'?

It has already been pointed that there are various degrees of evil. We have Sauron who is the closest aproximation of it, as stated in the letters (I would personally put Melkor at least on the same level but whatever). Then there are the nazgul and the balrogs, who are probably unshakeable from their allegiance. Then the orcs who are in large numbers and very close to the edge; true enough, none are lauded. At least for these beings we can say that they are thoroughly corrupted; even if they do achieve something spectacular, is it actually their own abilities which bring about that result, or the force of evil, a very present and powerful one, which drives them forth? I would hold it is the later and that force of evil merits no recognition. Not morally, nor otherwise; why praise Melkor's force at work, which was the most powerful in Arda to begin with (less Eru's)?

However, there are also, as stated, other servants of Sauron, who can make brave last stands. We also have two parties at war because of Sauron/Melkor - but both parties are "good" and their worth recognized often: Feanor against teleri & Galadriel; Gondorians in the kin-strife; Thingol against the dwarves. These evil guys do receive recognition, but not for their evil deeds.

[davem]

Another thought occurs - what message does the reader take from Tolkien's work as regards war - its often stated that Tolkien's work reflects the tragedy of war - but is it so simple?

Of course tragedy runs through Tolkien's writings & that tragedy is often associated with the consequences of war...& yet...

War is only presented as tragic when the heroes ('our side') lose. When the other side lose it is seen as good, as glorious. So, war, in & of itself, is not tragic - only the defeat of 'our side' is tragic. War is only bad if 'we' lose.

Hence, we are not 'detatched, horrified observers of the horror (which we are in a real sense with Homer - when Hector fights Achilles we know that it will be horrible & that whoever wins we will feel grief. Hence Homer brings home the horror & tragedy that war is - no matter who wins there is loss & bereavement). We root for one side to win & only wish to see the utter defeat of the other. Thus, we only grieve when 'our side' loses, & cheer when the other side is beaten.

And that seems (to be provocative....) a questionable message, does it not?

EDIT

Feanor against teleri & Galadriel; Gondorians in the kin-strife; Thingol against the dwarves. These evil guys do receive recognition, but not for their evil deeds.

Of course - and yet the tragedy here is due to 'delusion' or trickery, not because noble warriors are fighting each other for causes they truly believe in. Hence, that element of tragedy is missing.