The Greatest Warrior...

[Hammerhand]

Right, this has probably been done countless times before - but the search button wasn't working, so that is my excuse.

Who, in your opinion is the greatest warrior in Middle Earth... discluding Gods and Demigods (Valar and Maiar)

I'm interested to know what the range of charcters is like.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Greatest warrior?

Hmm... hum... (no, not Treebeard)... The range is indeed quite wide. I am sure there is somewhere mentioned who was considered the strongest, at least of some time... that can help us...

But the people I can think of now are Húrin, Túrin, Fingolfin... maybe even Fingon... I'd say someone among these. I will maybe even go more for one of the Men than for one of the Elves... short-lived but maybe... well, what do you mean by "greatest"? If it also means "famous", then the short-living are in certain disadvantage... but then I'd say Fingolfin. I can't think of anyone else who fought (and hurt!) a Vala (except for Finwë in self-defense, and he just fought, not hurt).

[Hammerhand]

It's quite hard to judge who would be the best isn't it, given that they all fought and fell to different people.

I think i'd probably back Húrin, Fingolfin, Ecthelion, Turgon (in his younger days) or maybe Tuor.

I think the Dwarves are underrated as far as brawling goes, there a couple that seem to be pretty clued up for battle. "Greatest" here means the most capable of destroying their opponant. It's tricky... i never thought of Ents, lol i would imagine Treebeard would be pretty lethal, as we read in the Two Towers!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

It's tricky... i never thought of Ents, lol i would imagine Treebeard would be pretty lethal, as we read in the Two Towers!

Well, but can you imagine him facing a balrog or a dragon?

But, here we are, apart from the rare occassion of Isengard, I don't remember any moment when the Ents would be drawn to such a situation. Hm, interesting now... I never thought how rare and significant the attack on Isengard was... never before and never after anything like that happened, if I'm not gravely mistaken...

If it's "the most capable of destroying their opponent" as you say, then I stick with Fingolfin. Vala is the most dangerous opponent, and yet he managed to wound him quite enough...

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, but can you imagine him facing a balrog or a dragon?

But, here we are, apart from the rare occassion of Isengard, I don't remember any moment when the Ents would be drawn to such a situation. Hm, interesting now... I never thought how rare and significant the attack on Isengard was... never before and never after anything like that happened, if I'm not gravely mistaken...

If it's "the most capable of destroying their opponent" as you say, then I stick with Fingolfin. Vala is the most dangerous opponent, and yet he managed to wound him quite enough...

I suppose Glaurung would be one of them.. seeing as he isn't Maiar or Valar.

I'm sure you know what i mean when you have attractions to different characters for different reasons - and i don't mean in a science fiction lust sort of way - example, Húrin's slaying of the 70 trolls, just to defy Morgoth and give Turgon time to withdraw. The death of Huor in that scene was a kick to the crotch, but Húrin's unwavering effort forces you to admire him.

Fingolfin in his rage Vs Morgoth, need i say any more?

Ecthelion because he was the one to slay Gothmog and was reputed to have fought valiantly alongside his men not only at Nirnaeth Arnoediad but at the fall of Gondolin also.

I don't know why but i've always favoured the charcter of Cirdan... not that i think he would get particularly far with a sword.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

I suppose Glaurung would be one of them.. seeing as he isn't Maiar or Valar.

Well, I won't classify Glaurung... you see, the means by which he fights are completely different... not "conventional"... the same as with Treebeard... say, I would limit the choice to just Men, Elves, Dwarves, Dúnedain and Hobbits. Otherwise you could say even Mumak... but the title reads "the greatest WARRIOR" and I won't label Glaurung as "Warrior", nor Treebeard... Warrior is someone who wields a sword or some other weapon, or at least wrestles... Glaurung bites and... Treebeard does something strange with his arms, but he surely does not wrestle...

[Bêthberry]

If it's "the most capable of destroying their opponent"

Warrior is someone who wields a sword or some other weapon,

EOWYN

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, I won't classify Glaurung... you see, the means by which he fights are completely different... not "conventional"... the same as with Treebeard... say, I would limit the choice to just Men, Elves, Dwarves, Dúnedain and Hobbits. Otherwise you could say even Mumak... but the title reads "the greatest WARRIOR" and I won't label Glaurung as "Warrior", nor Treebeard... Warrior is someone who wields a sword or some other weapon, or at least wrestles... Glaurung bites and... Treebeard does something strange with his arms, but he surely does not wrestle...

Are you being treeist or naturist rather lol. I can see your angle, warrior being a title to those who fight conventionally. But Ents and Dragons are mortal too - i think for the purpose of the thread i agree, that "conventional" warriors are probably the limitation to the choice

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Warrior is someone who wields a sword or some other weapon, or at least wrestles... Glaurung bites and

Hm, why would you disregard his fire-throwing abilities? It is a most formidable weapon by itself

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

EOWYN

NO! lol!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, I of course assumed, that the words

the most capable of destroying their opponent

do not mean one particular opponent, but any opponent. You cannot say Farmer Maggot was the greatest warrior just because he was the most capable of destroying his opponent, who was a cockroach, whom he totally crushed under his foot and almost nothing remained of him. Not even Fingolfin managed to crush Morgoth into such little pieces. But generally, Farmer Maggot, nor Éowyn I believe, would be able to face, let's say, Morgoth.

Though, when we speak of it, Éowyn is a good choice. I believe she could be able to stand maybe even up to Glaurung, or Sauron (though in both cases with some difficulties, no doubt). But I don't believe she would (in contrary to my nominated champion Fingolfin) even scratch Morgoth.

[Raynor]

I am surprised to see that no one mentioned Feanor. I wonder if this is due to the fact that he doesn't come out as a favorite character for everyone, to be polite. However, he is described as the "mightiest of the Noldor", or, more generally, "mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Iluvatar". True enough, we ought to take into consideration that he is not the brightest commander ever.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am surprised to see that no one mentioned Feanor. I wonder if this is due to the fact that he doesn't come out as a favorite character for everyone, to be polite. However, he is described as the "mightiest of the Noldor", or, more generally, "mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Iluvatar". True enough, we ought to take into consideration that he is not the brightest commander ever.

Maybe the reason you mentioned played its part somewhere there as well However, I would imagine Fëanor also sort of a... well, not exactly a warrior. Yes, a warrior... but not that it would be his main... how to explain it... you see, Fëanor is simply "Multiclass" Fingolfin is mainly a warrior, as well as Túrin and Húrin and rest of the folk... though as you mention the quotation, I wonder if it's not after all the one I was speaking about in my first post here... but that does not mean he would need to be the greatest warrior... od does it? Body... endurance... valour...strength?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

As an opinion topic, this has been moved to the Novices and Newcomers forum, where similar threads are located. Please continue to read and write there - thanks!

[Raynor]

Well, Fingolfin is described as the "strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant". These two statements seem to go head to head, unless Tolkien was referring to Feanor's fire, when talking about his strength - and thus considering a spiritual potence, which might or might not translate into physical/combative aptitude, depending on how hot-headed he was at the moment. So, it may be that the answer is Feanor, if he keeps his cool, otherwise it's Fingolfin.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hmm, the trouble with Tolkien is that he sometimes makes similar statements about two (or more) different characters, and both in superlatives. The best it is generally with the "fairest" people, since there are at least twelve people who are "fairest in Middle-Earth", though with looking at more details we learn that they were "fairest of their house" or "fairest among Elven-lords" (meaning that some peasant may be better than them); sometimes it's even more complicated like that someone was "fairest of his house", but "his house was fairest of the other houses"... with the strength and so on, it's less clear... but considering what you have mentioned, I'll probably go for Fingolfin - you see - the description of him is "clear", not only in understanding it (with Fëanor, as you said, we don't know if the "fire" is not meant by it - personally, I realize that I always - sort of subconsciously - thought so; that's probably the reason why I haven't nominated him), but also in that Fingolfin is described as being superior in only these skills, and nothing more - which sort of calls for taking it as his specialization; something that is his own, in which he is a champion. Fëanor is more "universal", but less focused on one thing; and one assumes that such a person does not reach the qualities of the specialist.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, Fingolfin is described as the "strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant". These two statements seem to go head to head, unless Tolkien was referring to Feanor's fire, when talking about his strength - and thus considering a spiritual potence, which might or might not translate into physical/combative aptitude, depending on how hot-headed he was at the moment. So, it may be that the answer is Feanor, if he keeps his cool, otherwise it's Fingolfin.

I was in the process of writing something similar, and i totally agree.

I think Feanor is perhaps not viewed as a "warrior" because of the fact that he died, simple as. I think that if he had killed one of the Balrogs and then proceeded to die, it would be completely different. He dies quite early in the story, therefore we don't manage to see a transformation or adaptation of the character. All we know is that it took several Balrogs to stay him... more than most people can take on - but it's only speculation about how he would have fared in the wars, being that he wasn't mentioned much in relation to battle previously.. the kinslaying of the Teleri i think was the bit just before.

But undoubtedley Feanor has to be in the Top Ten of "conventional" warriors - i believe.

However, on sheer favouritism, i have to go with Fingolfin Though the thought of a Feanor Vs Morgoth would have been absolutely fantastic. Place your bets now!

[The Saucepan Man]

The fact that Turin takes on and defeats Morgoth in the final battle rather suggests to me that, in the scheme of things, he is the greatest warrior.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

However, on sheer favouritism, i have to go with Fingolfin Though the thought of a Feanor Vs Morgoth would have been absolutely fantastic. Place your bets now!

Well, the trouble is, that Fëanor would have died without doing any harm. I can see it vividly. I doubt he would hurt Morgoth as much as Fingolfin did. There's sort of, you know - aha! - curse seen on him; he would probably end dead and what more, no eagle would probably save his body - Morgoth will feed his hounds with it. If the question is about being capable to destroy his opponent, then Fëanor - no, not, really not. He just is not the "victor" type.

Note please, that even Fingolfin ended dead - but nevertheless his deed is seen more as victorious than as defeat. Even you, Hammerhand, said that Fëanor is not seen as warrior "because of the fact he died"... but of those nominated, all did! At least Fingolfin, Túrin... but subconsciously, you see them dying a glorious death, technically a victory (in Túrin's case it is a victory, after all, without question) - but Fëanor's death was not victorious in any way. That's probably what we face here: we think of his failure - he did not reach his goal, even though he said that not even a Vala would stop him... hmm... also one thing influencing our minds without us noticing it in the first place.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The fact that Turin takes on and defeats Morgoth in the final battle rather suggests to me that, in the scheme of things, he is the greatest warrior.

But how relevant is that? How much of his power would Melkor had recovered? And in what state of power would Melkor be after he fought Earendil / Fionwe / Tulkas, depending on the version? Does the power of Turin take all the credit?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The fact that Turin takes on and defeats Morgoth in the final battle rather suggests to me that, in the scheme of things, he is the greatest warrior.

Well, I thought of that same when I wrote my first post, but I didn't want to post it since I thought it's not that "canonical", and then I forgot it. Yes, taken from this point of view, I would say so as well (cf. my first post).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But how relevant is that?

I would have thought it not just relevant but entirely compelling. Taking down the ultimate source of evil is surely the 'greatest' feat that a warrior can perform.

Or are we just talking most powerful warrior ...?

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, the trouble is, that Fëanor would have died without doing any harm. I can see it vividly. I doubt he would hurt Morgoth as much as Fingolfin did. There's sort of, you know - aha! - curse seen on him; he would probably end dead and what more, no eagle would probably save his body - Morgoth will feed his hounds with it. If the question is about being capable to destroy his opponent, then Fëanor - no, not, really not. He just is not the "victor" type.

Note please, that even Fingolfin ended dead - but nevertheless his deed is seen more as victorious than as defeat. Even you, Hammerhand, said that Fëanor is not seen as warrior "because of the fact he died"... but of those nominated, all did! At least Fingolfin, Túrin... but subconsciously, you see them dying a glorious death, technically a victory (in Túrin's case it is a victory, after all, without question) - but Fëanor's death was not victorious in any way. That's probably what we face here: we think of his failure - he did not reach his goal, even though he said that not even a Vala would stop him... hmm... also one thing influencing our minds without us noticing it in the first place.

Thats what i mean, he accomplished nothing when he died, whereas Fingolfin injured arguably the most powerful God, which ties in with your answer about the glory he attained by doing so. I think a Feanor Vs Morgoth would have been interesting solely due to the amount of hate that Feanor had for him, would it equal Fingolfins rage?

Then Fingolfin beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking Oromë himself was come; for a great madness of rage was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar. Thus he came alone to Angband's gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat. And Morgoth came.

Would the "Rape of the Silmarils" equal Fingolfins realisation of his crushed empire? I don't know, maybe. I still think Fingolfin inflicted as much on Morgoth as any High Elf could, and none could or did equal it.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I would have thought it not just relevant but entirely compelling. Taking down the ultimate source of evil is surely the 'greatest' feat that a warrior can perform.

Or are we just talking most powerful warrior ...?

In my opinion, we don't have sufficient information to conclude anything about Turin's power based on the result of that contest. If he is sufficiently weakened by the other opponent(s) I mentioned, then it would not take the greatest fighter ever to bring him down.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In my opinion, we don't have sufficient information to conclude anything about Turin's power based on the result of that contest. If he is sufficiently weakened by the other opponent(s) I mentioned, then it would not take the greatest fighter ever to bring him down.

You misunderstand me. I am not talking about whether Turin was most powerful, skilful etc warrior. But he was the warrior who achieved the ultimate greatness, and so, surely, the greatest warrior of Arda.

[Hammerhand]

Aye, but didn't Turin return from the Halls of the Dead to vanquish Melko? It confuses me the amount of endings!

So we are in a majority of Fongolfin being in the top... as with Turin.

Are there any backers for Fingon? Hurin? or Ecthelion? or any others you feel we need to discuss?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

You misunderstand me. I am not talking about whether Turin was most powerful, skilful etc warrior. But he was the warrior who achieved the ultimate greatness, and so, surely, the greatest warrior of Arda.

I disagree with this logic. If the bulk of the merit for defeating Melkor would go either Fionwe, Tulkas or Earendil, then giving the greatest title to the guy that gives the last punch does not seem appropriate to me. That last blow might be something purely "formal", and we don't know either way. Then again, we might have to agree to disagree.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If the bulk of the merit for defeating Melkor would go either Fionwe, Tulkas or Earendil, then giving the greatest title to the guy that gives the last punch does not seem appropriate to me.

But who got the credit for it?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But who got the credit for it?

Turin; however, I still believe that your judgment is more personal than general. Not to mention that in HoME XII, it is Ancalagon that Turin kills, not Melkor

Originally Posted by Note 17, The problem of Ros, HoME XII

The language of the Folk of Haleth was not used, for they had perished and would not rise again. Nor would their tongue be heard again, unless the prophecy of Andreth the Wise-woman should prove true, that Turin in the Last Battle should return from the Dead, and before he left the Circles of the World for ever should challenge the Great Dragon of Morgoth, Ancalagon the Black, and deal him the death-stroke.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I think Turin is the epitome of a 'warrior', who fights, continues to fight, seems undefeatable and dies tragically. Though he only ever achieved the slaying of Glaurung, he did this with a Man's body and a Man's wisdom.

I think Hurin is a big contender. I don't have the Sil on me right now but I think the words were "and he threw himself into the sea, and thence passed the greatest mortal warrior in Middle-Earth", or something along those lines, which seems pretty definitive. Feanor and Fingolfin, and Treebeard etc. if we include those, were born with abilities far surpassing those of Men, but Hurin through the steadfastness of his will held the full might of Morgoth at bay. Admittedly he broke eventually, but not as a result of the direct clash of wills, which he won.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The fact that Turin takes on and defeats Morgoth in the final battle rather suggests to me that, in the scheme of things, he is the greatest warrior.

Since Legate qualified the terms on which I based my earlier suggestion of Eowyn, I must ask for yet more clarifications.

Are stupid, stubborn and prideful required characteristics for this macho competition or are they simply assumed qualifications?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Since Legate qualified the terms on which I based my earlier suggestion of Eowyn, I must ask for yet more clarifications.

Are stupid, stubborn and prideful required characteristics for this macho competition or are they simply assumed qualifications?

'Stupid, stubborn & prideful' does seem to fit Eowyn pretty well too......

[MatthewM]

I am not familiar with all of the characters from the earlier ages that most of you are speaking of, so I am going to answer with my obvious choice. A Man who was definitely not "stupid", although perhaps stubborn and prideful-

Boromir of the Nine Walkers, of the Third Age.

The most renowned warrior of his time, and the greatest Gondor had seen in many years. Defending Gondor on countless occassions from the growing might of Sauron, in specific his defense of Osgiliath, Boromir proved vital to Gondor's survival during the last years of the Third Age.

In addition to being the Captain of the White Tower, Boromir's death was a truly heroic one...one of a true warrior. Sacrificing himself and fighting on against ridiculous odds, only falling when numerous arrows reigned on him, shot by cowardly orcs who would not dare face him sword to sword.

I know most here will not agree, but in my opinion as far as my knowledge streches at this time, Boromir was Middle-earth's greatest warrior.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

'Stupid, stubborn & prideful' does seem to fit Eowyn pretty well too......

Eowyn learns from experience, and so I would not call her stupid. She is driven to extreme measures out of her frustration and despair, but she does change.

Turin by and large does not learn from his mistakes.

However, the comparisons being made here are among characters in very different texts, with very different styles. Eowyn differs from most of Tolkien's characters in that her characterisation appears closer to those in 'realist' fiction, with some degree of psychological motivation, while many of Tolkien's other characters operate in a very different style of characterisation. Turin, for example, would not be so tragic if he learned from his mistakes.

Boromir on the other hand does learn, but he learns too late. Maybe he's Turin 'upgraded' ('downsized'?) for a different literary style.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Eowyn learns from experience, and so I would not call her stupid. She is driven to extreme measures out of her frustration and despair, but she does change.

Turin by and large does not learn from his mistakes.

He does learn - he just learns the wrong things. And this brings up the larger question of the curse. To what extent can Turin 'learn' the right thing? Eowyn is not under Sauron's curse. Turin is driven by a belief that he can free himself from the curse he is under. He is seeking always to be free of his doom.

Turin is 'unlucky'. The choices he makes are all meant to bring about the Good. He isn't stupid at all. He is very smart, very cunning & a master strategist. He becomes a real threat to Morgoth's plans & in the end destroys his most powerful weapon. His strategy is, basically, 'the best defence is a good offence'. If Eowyn is driven by frustration & despair so is Turin most of the time.

Turin, for example, would not be so tragic if he learned from his mistakes.

As i said, he does learn from his mistakes - its the fact that he learns the wrong things from them that makes him a tragic hero - if he really learnt nothing at all from his mistakes he wouldn't be a tragic figure, he'd be an idiot & we wouldn't care about him.

And I think Turin & Eowyn are a lot closer than you imply - what if Niniel hadn't turned out to be Turin's sister - & what if Eowyn had been married before she rode to war &, after killing the Witch King it had turned out her husband was really her long lost brother?

Eowyn is 'lucky', & has a chance to learn from her mistakes, & find a new, meaningful life. Turin is 'unlucky' & doesn't. 'Call no man (or woman) lucky until he is dead' & all that.

If we're talking about greatest hero here we can't limit it either to being a nice guy, or to being lucky, or always winning. Turin is a great hero because he never gives in, always fights on, against insurmountable odds (even when he knows they are insurmountable. Being a hero doesn't mean being a nice guy who always wins. It means doing heroic things, facing the Dragon & standing your ground & not running.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

If we're talking about greatest hero here we can't limit it either to being a nice guy, or to being lucky, or always winning. Turin is a great hero because he never gives in, always fights on, against insurmountable odds (even when he knows they are insurmountable. Being a hero doesn't mean being a nice guy who always wins. It means doing heroic things, facing the Dragon & standing your ground & not running.

Based on your criteria, I would place Hurin before Turin as the greatest mortal warrior. Hurin was far more selfless in his actions (particularly in the Nirnaeith Arnoediad), and defied Morgoth to his face (which was dauntless beyond measure). As someone stated previously, Tolkien refers to him as the "mightiest of the warriors of mortal men", and that's good enough for me. In addition, I was never really pleased at how Turin slew Glaurung (stabbing him while hidden underneath). It lacks the heroic stature of Azaghal standing bravely against Glaurung, Ecthelion versus Gothmog, or Hurin defiantly slaying 70 trolls without recourse to aid or escape. In that sense, I think Tolkien missed the boat and lessened the impact of Turin's deed.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Based on your criteria, I would place Hurin before Turin as the greatest mortal warrior. Hurin was far more selfless in his actions (particularly in the Nirnaeith Arnoediad), and defied Morgoth to his face (which was dauntless beyond measure). As someone stated previously, Tolkien refers to him as the "mightiest of the warriors of mortal men", and that's good enough for me. In addition, I was never really pleased at how Turin slew Glaurung (stabbing him while hidden underneath). It lacks the heroic stature of Azaghal standing bravely against Glaurung, Ecthelion versus Gothmog, or Hurin defiantly slaying 70 trolls without recourse to aid or escape. In that sense, I think Tolkien missed the boat and lessened the impact of Turin's deed.

I suppose one could argue that Hurin's defiance of Morgoth wasn't his smartest move, & provoked the curse which destroyed his family, hence one could question his intelligence. And as far as Hurin vs the Trolls & Azaghal vs Glauring against Turin vs Glaurung I would only note that Turin won.....

And that's not simply a throwaway line. It was impossible for Turin or anyone else to defeat Glaurung in a fair fight - which was Morgoth's intention. Turin's approach was the only one that had any chance of success. Of course, this wasn't a Beowulf vs the Dragon, 'St. George vs the Dragon' or even a 'Marduk vs Tiamat' 'fair fight'. It is, incidentally, very like the way Sigurd killed the Dragon Fafnir:

Sigurd succeeded by digging a pit under the trail Fáfnir used to walk to a stream and plunging his sword Gram into his heart as he walked past.

But in a way Turin's move is to be expected. Tolkien may have been steeped in legends & old lore, but (as we see from the in-fighting & realpolitik in the lead up to the Battle of Five Armies) he knew that the real world ain't like that, & that in a desperate situation, where your family & people are at risk, you do what's necessary. Turin did precisely what Beortnoth did not & took the strategically smart approach in dispatching his enemy.

This is what I meant about Turin being smart & learning from his experiences - sometimes he does learn the right thing - he faced Glaurung before in the ruins of Nargothrond & learned from that experience. Hurin would not have climbed the cliff & stabbed Glaurung in the guts, he would have faced him like Fingolfin faced Morgoth - & he would have lost in the same way. Turin defeats Glaurung by not behaving like a classic 'Hero' facing his mortal enemy, but by seeing & treating him as a bloody pest, as destructive vermin who needs eradicating to protect decent folk. Turin, in that act displays total contempt for Morgoth. Glaurung is Morgoth's greatest weapon, designed to be awesome, to inspire terror, & Turin dispatches him like Indy dispatches the swordsman in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The killing of Glaurung is not the culmination, let alone the 'point' of the story - any more than the destruction of the Ring is the point of LotR. The point of both stories is what happens to the characters, not what they 'do', but the effect on them of what they do.

[Bêthberry]

what if Niniel hadn't turned out to be Turin's sister - & what if Eowyn had been married before she rode to war &, after killing the Witch King it had turned out her husband was really her long lost brother?

Eowyn is 'lucky', & has a chance to learn from her mistakes, & find a new, meaningful life. Turin is 'unlucky' & doesn't. 'Call no man (or woman) lucky until he is dead' & all that.

And what if the Moon and the Sun were Swiss cheese and the Light of the Simarils camembaert?

In addition, I was never really pleased at how Turin slew Glaurung (stabbing him while hidden underneath). It lacks the heroic stature of Azaghal standing bravely against Glaurung, Ecthelion versus Gothmog, or Hurin defiantly slaying 70 trolls without recourse to aid or escape. In that sense, I think Tolkien missed the boat and lessened the impact of Turin's deed.

Check out Tolkien's thoughts on heroism and chivalry and an excess of honour in his essay on The Homcoming of Beorhtnoth. While it is true that for the northern heroic spirit, warriors were expected to fight to annihilation if necessary, that desperate battle was intended to destroy or hold off the invaders, to save the people the leader was responsible for. A badge of honour, a personal sporting match, for Tolkien, would betray the people the leader was supposed to defend.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And what if the Moon and the Sun were Swiss cheese and the Light of the Simarils camembaert?

Er, well, yes.....quite. A good point, & one definitely worth considering.

Umm.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by davem

Umm.

Didn't you mean "Mmmm"?!