Gandalf, blood of hobbits on his hands?

[Formendacil]

A couple different thoughts here...

Firstly, going back to the question of whether Gandalf is blameworthy here reminds me strongly of the philosophical Problem of Evil--whether God is blameworthy for allowing evil to occur, except Gandalf has (I think) the legitimate excuse of not being an omniscient, omnipotent being--powerful, but most certainly not unlimited, and although Gandalf has a certain amount of prescience denied other beings, he is still a Maia taken form as a Man, with most (if not all) the limitations that implies. A defensible case can be made, I think, that Gandalf was not aware that Saruman was in the Shire.

But even if Gandalf was aware, this does not mean he had to step in. One of the theodicies (that is, arguments that attempt to explain the Problem of Evil) is to suggest that God allows evil things to happen because this is necessary for our free will to function. I would suggest a similar explanation here: that Gandalf may have known indeed that Saruman was in the Shire, but because he had stripped Saruman of his staff and powers, he knew that Saruman could not pose more of a threat than the Hobbits could handle--and therefore he stayed out of it. Indeed, if you look at Gandalf's actions throughout the Lord of the Rings, he tends to use his power chiefly and most obviously against enemies that truly outmatch others--such as his battle against the Riders on Weathertop, or again against the Witchking in Gondor, or the obvious one against the Balrog. But where the enemy is one that others are capable of handling, Gandalf tends to step back into an advisory role, as when preparing for the assault on the Black Gate.

In the case of the Shire, Gandalf would be in a position to know, if anyone would, whether or not the Hobbits were capable of action against Sharkey and his villains, as indeed they proved to be, and it strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis that Gandalf would have abstained from interference out of respect for their own maturity as a community and people to be able to handle their own problems.

[The Might]

Meh, I give, I give, you point out well that there was a lot of mistrust between Gondorians and Easterlings, especially considering the "Easterlings used for human sacrifices in the Second Age" part which I had previously forgot.

Ok, you win this one. I accept indeed that under these circumstances it would have been fairly unlikely for the Haradrim to accept a Gondorian offer over a Sauronian one. At least at the time of the War of the Ring.

Perhaps had the Kings of Gondor been less suprematist as Pitchwife says, there would have been more chances for peace earlier on and for a closer relation to the southern and eastern tribes. I guess education also plays a big role here, it is easy to subdue and persuade the less educated, so had Gondorians also tried to educate them instead of just fighting them off and conquering them there would have been hope.

I know, I know, a lot of "ifs" above, one could go as far back and say, "and if Feanor had not made the Silmarils" etc., but still I feel that in a different timeline with kinder Gondorians in the Third Age Khand and Harad may have been viable alliance partners.

To end this just had one thought, one slight piece of evidence that the Haradrim and the Variags kept their word and didn't do any evil against Gondor is that the story "Return of the shadow" (correct name?!) actually was centered around evil Gondorians and not revolting Haradrim. Of course, the story was not finished, so it is only slight evidence.


Now to the Hobbits. I agree there Pitchwife, except on one point, namely that of the last question.

Was it necessary? I say it was not. I again feel that there would have been a cleaner way out of it, even in the Age of Men. Always answering by violence is easy and often useful, but not necessarily the only and probably not the best way.

Just a little comparison for which I hoped to not be judged too harshly, I think it again fits since it is highly contemporary, an issue as I am writing the post actually.

It's just like with what Israel is doing in the Gaza strip. Attacked from within this area, like the Hobbits were attacked by the ruffians from the outside. It responds with violence.

Was this action also necessary?

And really bringing it to a bigger scale - do you always need to kill something that's in your way? Because if yes, then we have a lot of killing to do in the time to come.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In the case of the Shire, Gandalf would be in a position to know, if anyone would, whether or not the Hobbits were capable of action against Sharkey and his villains, as indeed they proved to be, and it strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis that Gandalf would have abstained from interference out of respect for their own maturity as a community and people to be able to handle their own problems.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by The Might

Ok, now I really am getting started. German bellicosity starting WWI? You sound just like Clemenceau, so one-sided and without any deeper thinking.

This might come as a surprise to you, but sometimes I am actually accused of 'deep thinking'. I shan't belabor the point about Wilhelm and his generals, as it diminishes the original question, but I will comment that I am well aware of all the precedents of WWI, whom did what to whom, and who sided with whom. I will only leave with a comment from the academic journalist Alex Woodcock-Clarke, who stated: "He [Wilhelm II] may not have been 'the father of war' but he was certainly its 'godfather'."

Wilhelm, who was indeed diagnosed as a 'meddling megalomaniac' by contemporaries, pushed Austro-Hungary into a hard-line stance against Serbia, and Germany was the only country to invade neutral countries, like Luxembourg and Belgium (where Germans slaughtered civilians). I suggest you read the Pulitzer-Prize winning "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman, which brilliantly encapsulates the first month of WWI. It is not merely that Germany fomented the war, refused offers of detente and struck first, it is they continued the war another four years, when many of the German generals realized they could hope for nothing better than a stalemate after their Schlieffen Plan utterly failed after the first month of the war.

I am not obviating the parts played by the other combatants, as WWI was a miasma of muddle-headed lunacy on all sides; however, Wilhelm and his generals certainly bear the greatest culpability in starting and continuing the war. The evidence is there, whatever revisionist or partisan nonsense you care to quote.

Originally Posted by The Might

And really bringing it to a bigger scale - do you always need to kill something that's in your way? Because if yes, then we have a lot of killing to do in the time to come.

TM, as you seem quite intelligent, I will have to surmise that you refuse to take the original discussion in context. Given the situation and the time period (an era that precluded such modern inventions as 'detente' and 'passive resistance, and where these newfangled contrivances would be utterly alien in both a Middle-earth and a 'real world' sense), and considering that the usurper of power within the Shire (that being Saruman), whom you've already admitted lacked a conscience, and Saruman's barbaric band of cutthroats and thieves (again, I highly doubt they differed much from the murdering bands of merciless mercenaries who made life hell in 14th century France), would not ever feel compassion or sympathy for the hobbits they oppressed. They, in fact, thrived on the hobbits' misery, and purposely set out to destroy the Shire's bucolic way of life (clear-cutting trees, bulldozing hobbit-holes, replacing them with mean shacks, erecting smoke-belching chimneys, etc.).

This was Saruman's intent. In the meanest, vilest manner possible, he set out to destroy the Hobbits, believing them an easy mark. You'll notice he had little success in Bree (Ferny and his men were "shown the gate" as Butterbur said). As far as Gandalf, he said succinctly:

'I am with you at present,' said Gandalf. 'but soon I shall not be. I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folks to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.

In context with the 'scouring' and Frodo's evident distaste for battle, Merry said it best:

'But if there are many of these ruffians,' said Merry, 'it will certainly mean fighting. You won't rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo.'

So, after this circumlocutious (but intriguing) discussion, we see that, in context with the era presented (vague, certainly, but definitely free of any trappings from the Enlightenment or later), and with the specific dire situation (where Lotho had been killed, Lobelia and Fatty imprisoned, and the ruffians under Sharkey intent on killing the newcome hobbits, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin), battle was the only outcome certain to expel the tyrants from the Shire. The quick and decisive actions by the Hobbits actually reduced the casualties and ongoing misery of the Shire. As you may be aware, any effort at 'passive resistance' in real history (such as in India and South Africa) takes decades to bear fruit -- and hundreds or thousands of people die in the effort. Therefore, only 19 Hobbits dying, although grievous, was a small price to pay for freedom, and inordinately small compared to the actual wars that occurred in Rohan and Gondor.

Context, we must have context!

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Therefore, only 19 Hobbits dying, although grievous, was a small price to pay for freedom, and inordinately small compared to the actual wars that occurred in Rohan and Gondor.

The related thought occurs to me here--and I feel I might be harping a bit on the free will theme a bit--that those 19 Hobbits, though actually killed by the ruffians, may have, for all we know, been more responsible for their own demise than Gandalf, or Frodo, or Saruman might have been. My thought therein is not so much to remove potential culpability from those mighty agents, but to remember that the Hobbits all involved themselves in the battle voluntarily, and presumably wanted to play their part in the eviction of the ruffians. In a sense it denies their deaths value to say that they were completely unnecessary and avoidable.

And, indeed, we really can't say they were avoidable. Indeed, it is fine to speculate that Gandalf's presence in the Scouring of the Shire would have lowered the casualty rate even more than its already low actual count, but there is no reason to assume this is so. Again, I point out that Gandalf is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and although a powerful being, it is possible that drawing too powerful a being into the conflict might have resulted in greater bloodshed.

To speculate, for example, Gandalf's presence might have meant no Hobbit casualties at Bywater, or he might have been recognised as soon as they crossed the High Hay, and thus alerted Sharkey to his presence, rousing all the ruffians into much better martial order than the lazy lot that was trounced at Bywater. Indeed, a larger, better-gathered ruffian force expecting to fight a wizard might have given a better account of itself in battle, or (being cowards) they might have taken to slaughtering civilians. We have ample evidence, after all, that Saruman was not so much intent on changing and ruling the Shire as on ruining it, and his last ditch effort if Gandalf were to arrive might have been the wholesale massacre of the inhabitants of Hobbiton.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Context, we must have context!

I so desperately want to make a quip about Biblical exegesis here, but there is no relevance to the topic and we have plenty of real world digression in the WW1 tangent.

[The Might]

Well, as it seems that everyone else judges that this was the best way to solve things in the Shire I'll give up the discussion.
If even Merry speaks against me, then indeed within the LotR context there does not seem to have been any other way to solve things at that time.

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context. Perhaps because for many it is an inconvenient truth as Mr. Gore would put it that they would be ready to sacrifice lives for some goal.

Just like Merry and Pippin did. I doubt that the Hobbits taking part knew what awaited them, Formendacil. I doubt they can be expected to have really taken death into consideration. It is as if you're expecting adventurous teens sent to Irak wanting to be part of something grand to also expect their deaths in some explosion. They don't, because they aren't mature or wise enough or in the Hobbits case may have never witnessed or heard of such an end. The volunteering Hobbits can surely be praised for their bravery, but we by taking the context into consideration as Morth said we should do it becomes clear that they did not expect or know death. Who did? The four companions and Gandalf. Bringing the guilt question back to them for sending the Hobbits into battle, well knowing the possible consequence. Ok, except Frodo, he didn't want battle actually.

But, yeah, ok, so the Scouring made sense, no matter who was guilty for the casualties. And so did all the other killing in M-e made in the name of good, peace, order, the Valar, etc. I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Might

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context. Perhaps because for many it is an inconvenient truth as Mr. Gore would put it that they would be ready to sacrifice lives for some goal.


I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

There is a very good reason most posters don't wish to take the discussion out of the context of LotR and it has nothing to do with squimishness over an inconvenient truth.

It has to do with forum posting policy.

Originally Posted by The Barrow Wight, via Estelyn Telcontar, Moderator

“This board is for Tolkien-related discussions."

It's a basic rule of the Barrow Downs, which does not have any non-Tolkien discussions. So discussion of war generally or philosophically or historically or contemporarily does not belong unless it clearly relates to Tolkien's work. When the war in Iraq started members were asked to remove WWI poems from their signatures because they could be construed as fomenting off topic dicussions--at least, I remember Squatter removing some beautiful poetry from his sig. Same for religion. Same for other authors. That's why, for instance, we have a thread comparing Golden Compass with LotR, but no thread alone discussing Pullman. I would say that Tolkien is our one Ring here, but that would be a poor jest.

For more info, see this post by Estelyn: Guidelines for Forum Posting. She has some good things to say, too, about debate, discussion and accepting criticism and opposing thought.

I've really appreciated Formendacil's posts on free will and Gandalf. I think they made the question relevant to the ethos of LotR. I could see, for instance, a more modern writer not having Wormtongue killed but having the hobbits and Wormtongue having to work out their differences. But the harsh irony of his end says something about Tolkien's ideas on fate, dramatic structure, and the sorry nature of warfare.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by The Might

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context.

For myself, I'm not willing to discuss it outside the LotR context because I don't believe this is the proper forum for it. This being the Books forum, I would expect the discussion to be a literary one, first and foremost. I'm not exactly sure where a discussion of Tolkien's literary politics versus Real World politics would be best located, but for me, this doesn't really feel like the right place. Just my opinion, of course.

[The Might]

So non-Tolkien matters that are still relevant to a Tolkien-related discussion are not welcomed. Meaning that all arguments must come from Tolkien's work, keeping it all simply Tolkien. Well, now that I know that this is the official policy I guess I have no possibility but to accept it.

I do however dislike this, not having been aware of this fact up until know, since it creates a very tight barrier around this "playground" so to speak, one that one cannot cross. But, if it was decided to do so, fine. I will also refrain from discussing anything not directly linked to Tolkien's works, or in the Movies forum to any movies based on his works.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by The Might

But, yeah, ok, so the Scouring made sense, no matter who was guilty for the casualties. And so did all the other killing in M-e made in the name of good, peace, order, the Valar, etc. I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

Might, regrettable as killing is in real life, do you actually think The Lord of the Rings would have been better if... well... if none of what now makes up the story was in it?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Might

I do however dislike this, not having been aware of this fact up until know, since it creates a very tight barrier around this "playground" so to speak, one that one cannot cross. But, if it was decided to do so, fine. I will also refrain from discussing anything not directly linked to Tolkien's works, or in the Movies forum to any movies based on his works.

I can emphathise with your feelings. I was slammed once for daring to criticise Tolkien's style--musn't fan the flames of anti-Tolkien sentiment amongst the fandom.

However, the policy has served the Downs well in that it has saved us from likely tsunamis from Potter philes, Lewis lovers, Conan buffs, and hoards of fantasy gamers. It also provides the intellectual challenge of forming questions and threads in clever ways so that they are relevant and are clearly seen to be relevant. I think Ibrin is on to something.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

However, the policy has served the Downs well in that it has saved us from likely tsunamis from Potter philes, Lewis lovers, Conan buffs...

Wouldn't that be Potter philes, Lewis lovers and Conan connoisseurs?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Wouldn't that be Potter philes, Lewis lovers and Conan connoisseurs?

Well, I suppose so, if mere repetition of the alliterative pattern were the simple aim. And, anyway, 'connoisseurs' in the context ("context! We must have context" ) of "Conan' would be such an oxymoron that I decided to go for a word much more often associated with the barely-clad warrior and his demosels, 'buff'.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

regrettable as killing is in real life, do you actually think The Lord of the Rings would have been better if... well... if none of what now makes up the story was in it?

If I may interject here, your question reminds me of the potential in rpgs, an alternate universe type of rpg. Perhaps one could role play a War of the Rings that is not a war.

[Gordis]

I am always somewhat baffled when people speak of hobbit innocence in a positive sense and lament its loss. Hobbits are NOT children. Adult persons living in a wide world have no call to be innocent. They have no right to be innocent.

Hobbit innocence was bought at a heavy price, and it were the Dunedain who paid the price: those who died at Fornost in 1974-75, in the Ettenmoors, all over old Arnor and finally at Sarn Ford in 3018. Aragorn paid for Hobbit innocence when he had lost his grandfather a year before he was born and his father when he was two, when he himself went to kill orcs and lost HIS innocence well before he was twenty.

But have a look at a fifty-year-old Hobbit, another dweller of Arnor:

‘I knew that danger lay ahead, of course; but I did not expect to meet it in our own Shire. Can’t a hobbit walk from the Water to the River in peace?’ exclaimed Frodo.
‘But it is not your own Shire,’ said Gildor. ‘Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out.’

Gildor was quite right in rebuking Frodo. Such innocence borders on simplemindedness. And other Hobbits were even worse:

Frodo: There have been times when I thought the inhabitants too stupid and dull for words, and have felt that an earthquake or an invasion of dragons might be good for them.

The greenhouse conditions the Hobbits enjoyed for a very long time didn't make them any better, only worse. Why "greenhouse"? Look here, that was the beginning of the Shire:

TA 1601 Many Periannath migrate from Bree, and are granted land beyond Baranduin by Argeleb II (App.B). All that was demanded of them was that they should keep the Great Bridge in repair, and all other bridges and roads, speed the king's messengers, and acknowledge his lordship -LOTR.

Ahem, don't you feel that the King Argeleb had forgotten something? Like military duty or taxes? Yet the state is impossible without taxes, those who use the land and benefice from the protection of the state, HAVE to pay them.

You would counter that the hobbits had sent some archers to the last Angmar war. But read it again:

To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowmen to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it. -LOTR prologue

"Some bowmen", "they maintained", "no record". The truth is that if there were indeed some hobbit archers in the battle, their impact was minimal. Nobody had noticed them, neither the friends, nor the Enemy.

Now in 3018 the greenhouse conditions had abruptly ended. The Rangers were either slaughtered at Sarn Ford, or went South to aid Aragorn. Only that made the invasion of the Shire by the ruffians possible. Were the Hobbits tougher people, less lazy, meek and fat, no ruffian would have dared to molest them, because they outnumbered the evil Men many times over. The occupation of the Shire was the Hobbits' own fault in the first place.

Originally Posted by The Might

Did the Scouring make Hobbits better? And mark the question, it's not did it make it better for the Hobbits, but made them better. I believe not. It took away their inocence, best example is the killing of Wormtongue. The exhausted and tormented Wormtongue kills his evil master and gets three arrows in his body in return from Hobbit archers before Frodo could intervene and stop them from killing him. Great way to end a war.

Ahh, Wormtongue… But it was the very hobbit INNOCENCE that killed him! The poor shy hobbit archers, who had never witnessed a killing before, shot their arrows reflexively, out of fright and dismay. Less "innocent" bowmen, like rangers would have never done the same, leaving Grima the privilege of a fair trial.

Yes the Scouring made hobbits better, IMO, - but for a short time. Unfortunately, all the positive effects would be obliterated by King Elessar's stupid decree prohibiting Men to enter the Shire. The greenhouse conditions would continue, leading to the inevitable outcome:

Hobbits are an unobtrusive but very ancient people, more numerous formerly than they are today […] Even in ancient days they were, as a rule, shy of 'the Big Folk', as they call us, and now they avoid us with dismay and are becoming hard to find. […] They seldom now reach three feet; but they hive dwindled, they say, and in ancient days they were taller.

So much for all the "training" Gandalf had provided for the hobbits…

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Elmo

He could have prevented the deaths of all the hobbits in that battle.

My Tolkienish wit having become rusty with lack of practice, still let me try my hand at this.

So... (leaving aside all other considerations of Gandalf's 'calling' that 'ended' with the 'end' of Sauron and possible positive prohibition on assuming active role since that...) - that provided one considers death in battle of the few and 'rousing' of the rest to greater perception of the world within and without the Shire, with clearer perception of their own being/man(hobbit)hood and firmer handhold on their own lives and so on and so forth greater evil than leaving all them hobbits in slumber doing their job for them