# Why didn't Gandalf lead Aragorn to Minas Tirith in the first place?



## BlackCaptain (Jun 25, 2003)

Gandalf knew and was allies with Aragorn before the Lord of the Rings took place, was he not? For 45 years Gandalf knew Aragorn, and therefore would probably know his lineage and importance.

With that being established, why do you think Gandalf didn't influence Aragorn to go to Minas Tirith and bring hope to the people? Surely Gandalf would want Minas Tirith to become strengthend in any way possible... Do you think Gandalf was trying to save Aragorn for a occasion where he would be more needed? Do you think Gandalf could foresee Frodo going on this quest 45 years before he had any reasonable inkling that Bilbo posesed the One Ring? By reasonable inkling I mean seeing the hold that the trinket had on Bilbo, and reading the Scrolls of Isildur.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jun 25, 2003)

Aragorn did go to Minas Tirith as Thorngil, but his time wasn't at hand yet.


----------



## Eriol (Jun 25, 2003)

Those guys took their prophecies seriously. That Blade Reforged and Isildur's Bane thing was very important.

And, of course, Denethor would not have enjoyed it if Gandalf had done it, and Gandalf knew that.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 14, 2005)

Futhermore, the enemies of Sauron weren't united enough, nor did they realise the threat of Sauron and of the one ring.

In this case, should Sauron have attacked Gondor, not that much would have stayed in his way.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 14, 2005)

BlackCaptain said:


> Gandalf knew and was allies with Aragorn before the Lord of the Rings took place, was he not? For 45 years Gandalf knew Aragorn, and therefore would probably know his lineage and importance.
> 
> With that being established, why do you think Gandalf didn't influence Aragorn to go to Minas Tirith and bring hope to the people? Surely Gandalf would want Minas Tirith to become strengthend in any way possible... Do you think Gandalf was trying to save Aragorn for a occasion where he would be more needed? Do you think Gandalf could foresee Frodo going on this quest 45 years before he had any reasonable inkling that Bilbo posesed the One Ring? By reasonable inkling I mean seeing the hold that the trinket had on Bilbo, and reading the Scrolls of Isildur.



I think Aragorn would have refused, had Gandalf entreated him to go to Minas Tirith when they first met, or in the early years of their acquaintance. Aragorn was Isildur's heir, but he was also Chieftain of the Rangers. Remember Aragorn's exchange with Boromir at the Council of Elrond: I think he would have considered the peace and security of his ancestral lands in the North his first duty. (I also suspect that the Chieftains before him were of similar opinion--hence none AFAIK went to Gondor to claim the Kingship). 

Sauron had already re-established himself in Mordor by the time Gandalf and Aragorn first met. Even so, things didn't really begin to heat up until 3017--when Gandalf finally uncovered the truth about Frodo's ring--and then June of the following year, when Sauron attacked Osgiliath. The knowledge that Sauron's long-lost Ring had been discovered would have overridden Aragorn's sense of duty towards the peace of the North.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 14, 2005)

Aragorn also didn't have the authority-remember when he was accepted as king he had saved Minas Tirith and Denethor and Boromir were dead-they were the main obstacles to him becoming king, especially Denethor, and if he contested the kingship early then it could have caused a civil war as some sided with the steward and some with the heir of Isildur. He needed a good reason to contest his kingship! Besides, he was needed in the north.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 15, 2005)

> Aragorn also didn't have the authority-remember when he was accepted as king he had saved Minas Tirith and Denethor and Boromir were dead-they were the main obstacles to him becoming king, especially Denethor, and if he contested the kingship early then it could have caused a civil war as some sided with the steward and some with the heir of Isildur. He needed a good reason to contest his kingship! Besides, he was needed in the north.


I wouldn't agree with that. If Sauron was defeated without Aragorn having a visible role, then you think that the Aragorn, of for that reason, even his followers, should have waited indefinetely for the steward line to end? I believe that he didn't expose himself early on as the king of Gondor because Sauron would have wiped out Gondor, almost at any cost (as he tried, when he did find out).


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 15, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> I wouldn't agree with that. If Sauron was defeated without Aragorn having a visible role, then you think that the Aragorn, of for that reason, even his followers, should have waited indefinetely for the steward line to end? I believe that he didn't expose himself early on as the king of Gondor because Sauron would have wiped out Gondor, almost at any cost (as he tried, when he did find out).



Well, he tried when he found out (about Aragorn's identity) because at that point he knew that the Ring had been discovered--and the thing he feared most was its falling into the hands of a figure as powerful as a Dunedain king. But I think you're on the right track--had Aragorn claimed the kingship much earlier, it still would have given Sauron pause.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 15, 2005)

"Why didn't Gandalf lead Aragorn to Minas Tirith in the first place?" 

By that kind of question we may very well ask, Why didn't Frodo hop an eagle in the first place, fly the one ring to Mt. Doom, drop it in and have done with it all?

Because _Tolkien didn't write it that way!_ One also might ask, Why didn't Beethoven write a different opening for his 5th Symphony? Sheesh!

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 15, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> "Why didn't Gandalf lead Aragorn to Minas Tirith in the first place?"
> 
> By that kind of question we may very well ask, Why didn't Frodo hop an eagle in the first place, fly the one ring to Mt. Doom, drop it in and have done with it all?
> 
> ...



You're no fun.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 15, 2005)

> I wouldn't agree with that. If Sauron was defeated without Aragorn having a visible role, then you think that the Aragorn, of for that reason, even his followers, should have waited indefinetely for the steward line to end? I believe that he didn't expose himself early on as the king of Gondor because Sauron would have wiped out Gondor, almost at any cost (as he tried, when he did find out).



I don't think so. If Gondor had defeated Sauron without Aragorn then the rule of the stewards would have been further legitimized-they were, after all the leaders who helped defeat Sauron. Aragorn may have had a claim, he may have had many followers, but there still would have been a schism in Gondor. There had been other heirs of Elendil before Aragorn, one had contested the kingship and lost, there had been a civil war in Gondor because of an 'outsider' claiming the kingship. Politics are politics after all, and Gondor would have been divided between the king the steward-*that* was the main point. Sauron finding out about the heir of Elendil was important, I am not contesting that, but it would have been a spanner in the works of Sauron's plan-which were ripening. Sauron launched a premature attack on Gondor because he was going to attack Gondor anyway.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 15, 2005)

> By that kind of question we may very well ask, Why didn't Frodo hop an eagle in the first place, fly the one ring to Mt. Doom, drop it in and have done with it all?


Frodo didn't hopped on an eagle and flew to Mount Doom because eagles were afraid even of shepperds with bows, let alone the most formidable fortress of that time.


> (Sauron) feared most was its falling into the hands of a figure as powerful as a Dunedain king


I don't think Sauron feared any man taking hold of the ring, that man would soon become enslaved by it - even a maia like Gandalf would. The ring's problem only solution is its destruction, not its weilding.


> There had been other heirs of Elendil before Aragorn, one had contested the kingship and lost, there had been a civil war in Gondor because of an 'outsider' claiming the kingship.


The bottom line for getting the leadership of Gondor was that the Council of Gondor dictated that the ruler must be ruled by an heir of Anarion, but Aragorn was succesor to both Isildur and Anarion (being related to Firiel and Arvedui). So your argument is faulty.


> Sauron launched a premature attack on Gondor because he was going to attack Gondor anyway.


Who knows when and if Sauron would have attacked? Perhaps he would have tricked Denethor, so an armed fight for Gondor might not even be in his plans. I think he attacked Gondor because he saw the danger of _Aragorn _leading Gondor.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 15, 2005)

> The bottom line for getting the leadership of Gondor was that the Council of Gondor dictated that the ruler must be ruled by an heir of Anarion, but Aragorn was succesor to both Isildur and Anarion (being related to Firiel and Arvedui). So your argument is faulty



No, that was the reason the council _gave_, as I said politics is politics-just because they gave a reason doesn't mean that was the reason for the rejection. They refused Arvedui because of three other reasons 1.the steward held considerable sway 2. the female line of kingship was not given less legitimacy than before and 3. (this one supports your line of view) that there were other heirs alive at the time, one of them a war hero.

If being the legitimate heir to Isildur and Anarion was the main thing then why was Arvedui's claim rejected? His children would be direct descendants of both Anarion and Isildur, therefore in the long-term he had the more legitimate claim. The Council knew this too, but denied to comment on it.

Fast forward to the time of the War of The Rings. The Stewards as the _representatives_ of the king held a great deal of power. They were basically kings, except in name. Denethor and his sons were held in great reverence and they had a huge power base. The Gondorians still wanted a king of course, but you must keep in mind the pride of the House of Stewards, and more importantly Denethor and Boromir and I guess by that logic Faramir too.

Aragorn could not march into Minas Tirith and proclaim that he was the king returned. That would not be a sensible move. Some may have supported his claim. Some would have rejected it-it is called human nature. The resulting schism would have divided Gondor-why else do you think Gandalf told Pippin not to tell Denethor anything about Aragorn? Why did he worry that there would be a contest of power between Boromir and Aragorn if Boromir had survived and they had gone to war together? Would the soldiers listen to their revered captain or the heir of Isildur? Why was Faramir sceptical when Frodo told him about the return of the heir? If Denethor proposed one thing and Aragorn another who would the citizens obey? 

If Aragorn simply marched into Minas Tirith and said "I am the king-let me lead you" then I somehow doubt the people of Gondor would have obeyed and I find it even more doubtful that Denethor would have given up his authority, or that Aragorn's claim would have been wholly supported.




> Who knows when and if Sauron would have attacked? Perhaps he would have tricked Denethor, so an armed fight for Gondor might not even be in his plans. I think he attacked Gondor because he saw the danger of Aragorn leading Gondor.



No. Minas Morgul has been summoning its strength for some time for an assault on Minas Tirith. They weren't there for a party. Sauron merely told the Witch King to _speed up_ his attack-he didn't suddenly tell him to attack Minas Tirith-that attack was already a part of his plans. The evidence is everywhere in the books. And how would he have tricked Gondor? Would he send for his allies’ forces and gear himself up for war just to trick someone?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 15, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> You're no fun.



   

Barley


----------



## OldTomBombadil (May 15, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> Frodo didn't hopped on an eagle and flew to Mount Doom because eagles were afraid even of shepperds with bows, let alone the most formidable fortress of that time.


 I believe you're referring to this passage in _The Hobbit_:



> The Lord of the Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. 'They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew,' he said, 'for they would think that we were after their sheep.'


While this is a side issue we best not get bogged down on, this is one very good argument against the Eagles taking the Ringbearer to Mount Doom. Certainly the Nazgûl would see the Eagles coming, and are much more formidable then men with bows of yew. And yes, as Barley points out, it wouldn't leave much story if they had.



Thorondor_ said:


> I don't think Sauron feared any man taking hold of the ring, that man would soon become enslaved by it - even a maia like Gandalf would. The ring's problem only solution is its destruction, not its weilding.


I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, because it runs contrary to all that is said or implied in _The Lord of the Rings_:



> 'Now Sauron knows all this, and he knows that this precious thing which he lost has been found again; but he does not yet know where it is, or so we hope. And therefore now he is in great doubt. For if we have found this thing, there are some among us with strength enough to wield it. That too he knows. For do I not guess rightly, Aragorn, that you have shown yourself to him in the Stone of Orthanc?'


This was their purpose in riding to the Black Gate. They wanted Sauron to think that Aragorn had taken the Ring for himself to challenge the Dark Lord, and thus draw his attention away from the task of the Ringbearer. 

I'm pretty certain that Sauron believed that due to the seductive power of the Ring no man would want to or be capable of destroying the Ring. Didn't Frodo faulter at the very brink of destroying it? It was only through Gollum's intervention the Ring was destroyed, and even then it was an accident.

Finally, logic alone should tell you that if Sauron truly believed the West's only hope to defeat him was to destroy the Ring, he would have fortified Mount Doom with troops to prevent it.


While it seems like a simple answer, I also believe that the Aragorn had not staked his claim to the throne of Gondor because the time was not yet right.

_All that is gold does not glitter,_
_Not all those who wander all lost;_
_The old that is strong does not wither,_
_Deep roots are not reached by the frost._
_From the ashes a fire shall be woken,_
_A light from the shadows shall spring;_
_Renewed shall be blade that was broken,_
_The crownless again shall be king._

I believe Aragorn's wandering was educational. The knowledge he gained and wisdom he acquired would serve him well as king.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 15, 2005)

> I'm pretty certain that Sauron believed that due to the seductive power of the Ring no man would want to or be capable of destroying the Ring. Didn't Frodo faulter at the very brink of destroying it? It was only through Gollum's intervention the Ring was destroyed, and even then it was an accident.
> Finally, logic alone should tell you that if Sauron truly believed the West's only hope to defeat him was to destroy the Ring, he would have fortified Mount Doom with troops to prevent it.


What I meant was that the Valar and Eru wanted humans to solve this problem on their own and that the solution to this problem was the destruction. I wasn't talking from "Sauron's point of view".
About Faramir, I doubt he was of the same kind as Denethor and Boromir - Tolkien describes him otherwise. Also, the stewards swear allegiance to the king; in my opinion, if Sauron wasn't that close to Gondor, Aragorn would have taken the time and effort to become the king.
Well, about tricking Denethor, remember that the steward was already under Sauron's influence through the palantir - my theory still holds water  Remember that Sauron (and Morgoth for that matter) would first work through treason and then through war. There is no valid reason to believe that Denethor wouldn't have burned the gates of Gondor, if despair or other Sauron-induced thoughts would have reached him (he put himself and his living son in fire!!).


----------



## Inderjit S (May 15, 2005)

> About Faramir, I doubt he was of the same kind as Denethor and Boromir - Tolkien describes him otherwise. Also, the stewards swear allegiance to the king; in my opinion, if Sauron wasn't that close to Gondor, Aragorn would have taken the time and effort to become the king.
> Well, about tricking Denethor, remember that the steward was already under Sauron's influence through the palantir - my theory still holds water Remember that Sauron (and Morgoth for that matter) would first work through treason and then through war. There is no valid reason to believe that Denethor wouldn't have burned the gates of Gondor, if despair or other Sauron-induced thoughts would have reached him (he put himself and his living son in fire!!).



Not really. If Sauron was going to go after the heir of Isildur then he would have went after him, via war, regardless of distance. Mordor was not his only powerbase. Your reasoning is misleading because you neglect politics, you cannot base your assertion on _one_ point, there were other factors than the geographical position of Gondor-Aragorn had other considerations. Besides there were many heirs of Elendil before Aragorn who could have claimed the kingship but didn't-he had no more a legitimate claim than any of them. 

Sauron was only able to break Denethor after he thought the case was hopeless (ring in Mordor) and his line was ended and also Sauron's armies-I would go mad too! So we can see that there were several reasons for Denethor's madness-he was no servant, he was a Númenórean, he was probably the greatest man of his age besides Aragorn. Sauron could break him, but Sauron only broke him after Denethor naturally thought all was lost. Denethor had been gearing up for battle for much if his life, that is to say he had been sleeping in a coat-of-armour and let his sons do the killing, as all good leaders do.  There is a good reason as to why he wouldn't burn down the gates of Minas Tirith. First of all burning down the gates of Minas Tirith would only be of help to Sauron if Sauron sent a army to besiege it, so you kind of contradict yourself in that Sauron would have to send an army to attack Gondor. Also there is a good reason as to why he wouldn't burn the gates of Minas Tirith-because the people of Minas Tirith weren't stupid and they wouldn't allow him to do so, or follow his orders if he told them to. He would have been considered mad.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 16, 2005)

> Not really. If Sauron was going to go after the heir of Isildur then he would have went after him, via war, regardless of distance. Mordor was not his only powerbase.


I knew he would go to war no matter the distance, the thing is this way Aragorn would have had the time to become king, and face Sauron's army as such.


> Besides there were many heirs of Elendil before Aragorn who could have claimed the kingship but didn't-he had no more a legitimate claim than any of them.


Now, we are going in circles here. I've said already three times that he didn't already become king because, if he would, Sauron would have atacked Gondor in full might, and Gondor wouldn't have rallied all its allies, as it did in the end.


> Sauron was only able to break Denethor after he thought the case was hopeless (ring in Mordor) and his line was ended and also Sauron's armies-I would go mad too!


I don't pretty much understand what you are saying.


> So we can see that there were several reasons for Denethor's madness-he was no servant, he was a Númenórean, he was probably the greatest man of his age besides Aragorn. Sauron could break him, but Sauron only broke him after Denethor naturally thought all was lost.


Denethor thought everything was lost because he was seeing things through Sauron's eyes, the palantir corrupted him, and "natural" despair combined with the palantir led him to maddness. The palantir influenced even Saruman into thinking the way Sauron wanted.


> burning down the gates of Minas Tirith would only be of help to Sauron if Sauron sent a army to besiege it, so you kind of contradict yourself in that Sauron would have to send an army to attack Gondor.


Not an army to attack, but an army to take over an already would-be lost city. And you are taking my words too literally, it doesnt require to "burn down the gates" actually, there are myriads way where inside "help" can lead to the loss of Gondor.


> Also there is a good reason as to why he wouldn't burn the gates of Minas Tirith-because the people of Minas Tirith weren't stupid and they wouldn't allow him to do so, or follow his orders if he told them to. He would have been considered mad.


Then how the heck did they let him burn himself and his living son?? Not let him, Help him do it. If the guards were so loyal to him as you said so, they would follow him.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 16, 2005)

> I knew he would go to war no matter the distance; the thing is this way Aragorn would have had the time to become king, and face Sauron's army as such.



If Sauron couldn't be beaten by arms (as Elrond and Gandalf concede) then how much difference does a few hundred miles make? If Aragorn ruled from Minas Tirith, Rohan or Arnor then it would have made little difference-Sauron's armed might would have overcome him. 

Read the part on Denethor in the appendix-he would not have submitted to Aragorn and there would have been a power struggle, or schism.



> Now, we are going in circles here. I've said already three times that he didn't already become king because, if he would, Sauron would have attacked Gondor in full might, and Gondor wouldn't have rallied all its allies, as it did in the end.



I know you have said it three times, that is not what I am contesting, I am contesting your argument. Aragorn of course didn't become king because of the threat of Sauron but he also didn't become king because of the politics of Gondor and the difficulty in assuming kingship. If it was that easy to become king then his forefathers would have contested it. Your position makes no sense because you discard all other factors in the favour of one when it is obvious that there wasn't just one factor in the matter. 



> Denethor thought everything was lost because he was seeing things through Sauron's eyes, the palantir corrupted him, and "natural" despair combined with the palantir led him to maddness. The palantir influenced even Saruman into thinking the way Sauron wanted.



Read the passage which describes Denethor's demise. He only submitted after 1. he found out the ring had been sent to Mordor 2. he had seen Sauron's armies and so he realised they had no chance to succeed as the ring (the only weapon they could use) was lost and he was far too strong too fight and finally he only broke after his Boromir died and finally when he sent his son Faramir to his death-that is when he broke, that is how it is described in the books. He is swayed by the palantir but only after he gives up all hope-his lack of hope causes him to do so-he had been battling Sauron via the palantir for many years, he had seen Sauron's armed might-but it was only after he himself broke that Sauron was able to break him. Saruman and Denethor wanted different things. Denethor wanted to defeat Sauron, Saruman wanted to ally himself with him or get the ring, Saruman was happy with being Sauron's vassal though-getting the ring was of course a bonus and a bonus which he pursued but when he was ensnared by Sauron he was seeking a alliance whilst Denethor was seeking to fight him.



> Then how the heck did they let him burn himself and his living son?? Not let him, Help him do it. If the guards were so loyal to him as you said so, they would follow him.



That is pretty glib reasoning. First of all his guards *fled* him when they realised he was mad. It was his closest servants who aided him, and even then reluctantly, not everybody in Gondor was a closer servant of his, nor would they have listened to him if he had gone mad and told them to do something to the detriment of Gondor. They were not fools to obey the commands of a madman. "Others may contest your will, when it is turned to madness and evil."


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 16, 2005)

Ok, here are some points we agree (I assume you agree with what you haven't challenged)

1. we are only speculating, no one knows for sure what Aragorn would have done of the voyage to Mordor didn't occur;

2. Aragorn did have obligations in the north;

3. Accessing the throne of Gondor was at least problematic

4. Aragorn becoming king of Gondor at any time in the story would have triggered an immediate attack from Sauron.

Are you contesting the following:
1. the palantirs were under Sauron's influence
2. this influence was not only on the information level; through the palantir, Sauron can induce all sort of states of mind 
3. under such influence, one would do things which would help Sauron's plans
4. if sauron's armies were waaay further than they actually were, Aragorn would have had the time to challenge the throne.
5. with the help of Gandalf, he would have succeeded; if you don't agree with this one in particular, *how* and *when* do you think Aragorn or his heirs would have become king if Sauron wasn't defeated in their lifetime? I would be very interested in your reply on this matter in particular.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 16, 2005)

> if sauron's armies were waaay further than they actually were, Aragorn would have had the time to challenge the throne.



No. It is not a question of time. If Aragorn had contested the throne there would have been a power struggle. Power struggles are not about time but about power. There would have been a schism amongst the Númenóreans. That is the point. They would have been divided ad Denethor would not cede to Aragorn and would have a lot of followers, as would Aragorn. It may have sparked off a civil war or it may have disunited the enemies of Sauron when they needed to be divided. What of Rohan? With whom would she side? Who would lead the armies? Who would Imrahil follow? And the other lords and vassals? 



> with the help of Gandalf, he would have succeeded; if you don't agree with this one in particular, how and when do you think Aragorn or his heirs would have become king if Sauron wasn't defeated in their lifetime? I would be very interested in your reply on this matter in particular.



With the help of Gandalf? Gandalf gave council he did not coerce. 

I don't think they would have become king unless they did something drastic to save Minas Tirith or the political situation favoured them. But if they did something drastic against Sauron it would surely lead to his defeat, or in the very least a respite. Aragorn also in love with Arwen, so unless he became king he would have no descendants.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 17, 2005)

> unless he became king he would have no descendants


Where did you get that from? Counter-arguments:
- that sounds pre-deterministic - not appliable to Tolkien!
- Luthien would have stayed with Beren even if he wouldn't have succeeded in his quest - heck, even if he wouldn't have started it; why wouldn't Arwen do the same?
- Beren didn't actually fulfill his quest, but Thingol did give his daughter's hand away; why wouldn't Elrond, for that matter?
- Arwen would have had Aragorn's children, even if they weren't together;
- Aragorn could have simply remarried.

But, more importantly:


> No. It is not a question of *time*.





> I don't think they would have become king unless they did something drastic to save Minas Tirith or the political situation favoured them. But if they did something drastic against Sauron it would surely lead to his defeat, or in the very least a *respite*.


Well, is it or isn't it a question of time? You don't seem pretty sure about the subject.


> unless they did something drastic


Gandalf himself said that no army could be a match for Sauron's force, so what drastic thing was up to the Dunedains to do? Their last attack on Mordor was a suicidal one in intention, is that what you had in mind? Or do you believe that Gandalf would have sacrificed himself in such an attack just to give Aragorn a chance at the throne?


> the political situation favoured them


To me, this "political situation" is a joker card to you... first you say the political situation didn't allow the ascendants of Aragorn to become king, how come it changed? Can you explain?


> if they did something drastic it would surely lead to his defeat


Is there anything besides destroying the ring a possible cause for Sauron's defeat? Gandalf himself recognised that he cannont defeat Sauron even as the white.

Most of your message can be dismissed as unacceptable in logical and historical terms. Maybe you can rephrase what you intended to say.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 17, 2005)

> Where did you get that from? Counter-arguments:



Your counter-arguments are moot points. Why? Because Elrond EXPLICITLY told Aragorn that she would not marry him unless he became king and he EXPLICITLY agreed. Pretty explicit huh? Tolkien may have been against pre-determinism but he was also against breaking promises-Aragorn was not one to break promises, especially ones as important as this and Elrond was not one to allow such promises to be broken. What you saying goes against the logic of the books on a whole.

Beren and Lúthien stayed together? So? Arwen was either going to go West with Elrond or stay in Middle-Earth with Aragorn-the condition being that Aragorn became king of Gondor, if he failed in that condition then Elrond would not allow the marriage, neither would Aragorn who promised to obey the commands of Elrond. Beren did manage to get the Silmaril-that is the point, he didn't deliver it to Thingol but he managed to get the Silmaril nonetheless-a feat whole armies couldn't achieve. 

As for Aragorn simply re-marrying. I somehow doubt it. It was Arwen or nobody. 



> Well, is it or isn't it a question of time? You don't seem pretty sure about the subject.



Actually I do-what I meant was that if Aragorn saved Minas Tirith in battle it would mean he a) defeated Sauron's armies in a battle or b) drove them back, or defeated one of Sauron's armies, as he did in the Pellenor Fields. Hence the words respite-respite in that he drove back one of Sauron's armies, effectively saving Gondor for a while, which he did do and hence his claim was legitimized, though it was also legitimized because Denethor and Boromir were dead. 



> Gandalf himself said that no army could be a match for Sauron's force, so what drastic thing was up to the Dunedains to do? Their last attack on Mordor was a suicidal one in intention, is that what you had in mind? Or do you believe that Gandalf would have sacrificed himself in such an attack just to give Aragorn a chance at the throne?



I know that. I have said that Sauron could not be defeated in battle several times in this thread. 



> To me, this "political situation" is a joker card to you... first you say the political situation didn't allow the ascendants of Aragorn to become king, how come it changed? Can you explain?



For me you seem to be so wrapped up in your own conclusion that you neglect to look at other factors which might have influenced Aragorn's decision in not contesting the kingship early. Read the books, in fact read the passages regarding Aragorn's kingship. Read the passages regarding Denethor’s character; he would have contested Aragorn's claim-hence the political situation is unfavourable and there would have been a schism. The political situation favouring them would be a very unlikely scenario; again it was more theoretical than practical. A political situation which favoured them would mean that there was a unhostile steward who was willing to give up his stewardship. 



> Is there anything besides destroying the ring a possible cause for Sauron's defeat? Gandalf himself recognised that he cannont defeat Sauron even as the white.



The "defeat of Sauron" was merely given as a pardigm, nor a reality, the point was more theoretical than anything else.



> Most of your message can be dismissed as unacceptable in logical and historical terms. Maybe you can rephrase what you intended to say.



How can most of my message be dismissed in logic and history when logic and history support my message? If it was so easy to become king then why didn't Aragorn’s forefathers do so? The ruling stewards "had the power of kings" and "hardened their hearts" against the hopes of some who wished for the return of the king via the line of Isildur. "So it was that no claimant could be found who was of pure blood, or whose claim would allow; *an all feared memory of the kin-strife*, knowing that if such a dissension arose again, then Gondor would perish" "It is scarcely wise when bringing the news of the death of his heir to a mighty lord to speak over much of one who will, if he comes, claim the kingship." "I am steward of the House of Anárion! I would not step down to become the dotard chamberlain of an upstart! Even were his claim proved to me, still he comes but of the line of Isildur. I will not bow to such a one, last of a ragged house bereft of lordship and dignity." But Éomer said "Already you have raised the banner of the kings and displayed the token of Elendil's house. Will you suffer these to be challenged"
*"No" said Aragorn, "But I deem the time unripe; and I have no mind for strife except with the enemy and his servants." "Your words, lord, are wise..." said Imrahil*

Also note the description of the stewards from Ecthelion, Denethor's father. 

As for historicity- Arvedui acknowledges the self-determination of Gondor. They were allies, not dual-kingdoms.

I aplogize if I sound rude at times, it is just the way I write.  

I have dealt with the issue of stewardship here if you wish to take a look, I also deal with the issue elsehwere, it is a topic that interests me, being a politics student.


----------



## Ingwë (May 17, 2005)

Gandalf had met Aragorn 45 years before the War of the Ring. Gandalf was Istar (Maia), he was sent by the Valar to help the Peoples of Middle earth. Maybe he saw hope in Aragorn but he realised that there is no reason to send him in Minas Tirith. I would say *Elrond saw hope* in Aragorn because the Elf named him Estel. Gandalf and Elrond were members of the White Council and maybe they discussed what to do? But there is no reason to return in Minas Tirith as a King. He was there as Thorongil and he helped the Steward. That was enough.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 17, 2005)

> Elrond EXPLICITLY told Aragorn that she would not marry him unless he became king and he EXPLICITLY agreed.


What's your point? That Thingol didn't explicitly asked and that Beren didn't explicitly agreed?


> Tolkien may have been against pre-determinism but he was also against breaking promises


Thingol promised Luthien's hand IF Beren delivers a Silmaril - he DID break this promise. Would you say this is the only example of a broken promise in Tolkien's world?


> Elrond was not one to allow such promises to be broken


If Thingol did it, why wouldn't Elrond? I ask you the second time. 


> Beren and Lúthien stayed together? So? Arwen was either going to go West with Elrond or stay in Middle-Earth with Aragorn-the condition being that Aragorn became king of Gondor, if he failed in that condition then Elrond would not allow the marriage, neither would Aragorn who promised to obey the commands of Elrond.


Well, excuse me for believing that love can be above Anything - especially true for the case of Beren and Luthien


> Beren did manage to get the Silmaril-*that is the point*, he didn't deliver it to Thingol but he managed to get the Silmaril nonetheless-a feat whole armies couldn't achieve.


What do you mean that's the point? The task was to bring a silmaril, not to play for ten minutes with one. I thought you were more drastic in judging promises.


> As for Aragorn simply re-marrying. I somehow doubt it. It was Arwen or nobody.


Is this suppose to be an argument?


> Actually I do-what I meant was that if Aragorn saved Minas Tirith in battle it would mean he a) defeated Sauron's armies in a battle (*NOT POSSIBLE)* or b) drove them back, or defeated one of Sauron's armies, as he did in the Pellenor Fields. Hence the words respite-respite in that he drove back one of Sauron's armies, effectively saving Gondor for a while, which he did do and hence his claim was legitimized, though it was also legitimized because Denethor and Boromir were dead.


Do you mean he had to prove himself as a hero? He already did that, so it wasn't necessary. And if he did drove them back for a while and the stewards were alive? Well, you provide the answer yourself:


> he would have contested Aragorn's claim-hence the political situation is unfavourable and there would have been a schism


So, where is then your answer?


> I have said that Sauron could not be defeated in battle several times in this thread.


I don't get it.. why did you mention it again then? 


> The "defeat of Sauron" was merely given as a pardigm, nor a reality, the point was more theoretical than anything else.


So your counter-argument ... is a non-argument?


> How can most of my message be dismissed in logic and history when logic and history support my message?


Well, let me sum it up for you:
- there were several plausible ways Aragorn and Arwen could have stayed together, even if he wasn't king (history and common sense provide several - your "doubts" don't necessarly dismiss this)
- you quote arguments that you yourself agree are have no basis ("Sauron's defeat)
- your main answer was "something drastic" - NOTHING would have mattered if the stewards were still in place. I bet the stewards didn't give a rat's behind if Aragorn would have wiped all of Sauron's army.

About your style, I don't see why you call me wrapped up in my conclusion if I was only discussing what you said? *Your only valid argument* - and I give this to you - was the that there shouldn't have been an hostile steward towards Aragorn's line claiming the throne, as long as Sauron was around. 
Now, the very thing which we were spinning around was how to counter such hostility - you think that happens only if: there is no hostile steward around. What is say is that this is unimaginative. Even Denethor is a person of strong emotions, at least that can be used. And why do you say Gandalf didn't use any degree of coercion? Remember the inclusion of Bilbo in the dwarf gang? Was that free will all the way? And was there no coercion of any sort when Bilbo gave his ring away? Even if it werent for Gandalf around, there are a myriad miracles (and miracles DO abound in Arda) and good conditions which would have helped *Aragorn king becoming king, even with a hostile steward around AND avoiding a new kin-strife*. I bet you can think of an example or two of other less-likely things which DID happen in Arda


----------



## Inderjit S (May 17, 2005)

> Thingol promised Luthien's hand IF Beren delivers a Silmaril - he DID break this promise. Would you say this is the only example of a broken promise in Tolkien's world?





> If Thingol did it, why wouldn't Elrond? I ask you the second time.



Which is pretty glib reasoning. Beren did what ENTIRE ARMIES could not achieve- he obtained the Silmaril. What was Thingol going to say "Oh you didn't bring it me-tough luck!"- Thingol was no moron, the fact that Beren didn't directly bring him the Silmaril, the fact that he achieved the impossible meant Thingol naturally rewarded him with Lúthien’s hand-he was worthy of her hand, Thingol couldn't refuse. How you can compare this to Aragorn's situation I don't know. Aragorn either became king or he didn't, if he didn't become king it would either because he was killed in battle or just didn't attempt it. 

But, no, I bet you will come back with your original point: Beren broke his promise! Big deal.



> Well, excuse me for believing that love can be above Anything - especially true for the case of Beren and Luthien



What on earth are you talking about? I am not Elrond. I am not Tolkien. You believe love can be above everything. Good for you. Your point is still moot though, applying your emotional logic to a fictional tale makes no sense.



> Is this suppose to be an argument?



Is that supposed to be a retort? The premise of my argument lies in the books, the premise of your argument lies in illogical twisting the story to suit your own ends. Yes it is an argument; Aragorn was in love with Arwen. It was Arwen or no one. Read the books. He had promised himself to her. 



> Do you mean he had to prove himself as a hero? He already did that, so it wasn't necessary. And if he did drove them back for a while and the stewards were alive? Well, you provide the answer yourself:



Proved himself a hero? Strawman. Read the books. 
He already proved himself a hero? I presume you are talking about the Pellenor Fields? That is my point-he had legitimized his claim my rescuing Gondor, you claim that he didn't contest the kingship because Sauron would attack, your ignore the fact that if he had just marched in on Gondor and claimed the kingship trouble would have come of it. He says so himself! Even after he had saved Minas Tirith! I never contested that if he had saved Minas Tirith he wouldn't become king, I argued for that, I was arguing against him just marching in and claiming the kingship.



> So your counter-argument ... is a non-argument?



So your counter-argument is sophistry? Not a non-argument, I was giving an example of how Aragorn could have become king-an example, not a counter-argument. STOP TWISTING MY WORDS. 



> Well, let me sum it up for you:
> - there were several plausible ways Aragorn and Arwen could have stayed together, even if he wasn't king (history and common sense provide several - your "doubts" don't necessarly dismiss this)



Really? I never knew you had such a gifted insight into Tolkien's mind-these plausible arguments, which incidentally you don't list, probably because they are so numerous and plausible that it is illogical to doubt them even though there is no evidence for their plausibility I guess they are plausible because you say so. 



> Now, the very thing which we were spinning around was how to counter such hostility - you think that happens only if: there is no hostile steward around. What is say is that this is unimaginative. Even Denethor is a person of strong emotions, at least that can be used. And why do you say Gandalf didn't use any degree of coercion? Remember the inclusion of Bilbo in the dwarf gang? Was that free will all the way? And was there no coercion of any sort when Bilbo gave his ring away? Even if it werent for Gandalf around, there are a myriad miracles (and miracles DO abound in Arda) and good conditions which would have helped Aragorn king becoming king, even with a hostile steward around AND avoiding a new kin-strife. I bet you can think of an example or two of other less-likely things which DID happen in Arda



So I am unimaginative if I use logic to back up my point and you are logical because you pussyfoot around the problem my claiming "Oh it would have worked itself out anyway-you unimaginative bore." LOL. What this possibilities are, I don't know. Never mind. Remember the inclusion of Bilbo? I don't remember Gandalf FORCING Bilbo to do so. He did so of his own free will. As for the ring: Again Gandalf didn't FORCE him to do so. He says so himself-it would have broken Bilbo if he had. He merely intimidated him. Bilbo gave the ring away of his own free will. Read the book. (I have said that a lot in this thread.)



> I bet you can think of an example or two of other less-likely things which DID happen in Arda



Non sequitir.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 18, 2005)

This is fun, though I will try never to become as cynical as you are. And I believe you shouldn't attack my person, that is a basic premise of a good discussion.


> Again Gandalf didn't FORCE him to do so. He says so himself-it would have broken Bilbo if he had. He merely intimidated him.


Here are definitions of intimidation 
(www.dictionary.com):
To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats. 
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/intimidate?view=uk
frighten or overawe, especially so as to coerce into doing something. 
Well, can you change you mind now? So much for Bilbo giving away by free will.


> Thingol was no moron, the fact that Beren didn't directly bring him the Silmaril, the fact that he achieved the impossible meant Thingol naturally rewarded him with Lúthien’s hand-he was worthy of her hand, Thingol couldn't refuse


Can you deny that Thingol sent Beren on that quest exactly because: he didn't want to give Luthien therefore gave an impossible quest, which could fortunately get Beren killed? When the quest was given, Thingol was very fond of its fulfillment!


> Aragorn either became king or he didn't, if he didn't become king it would either because he was killed in battle or just didn't attempt it.


What if he, like Beren, tried, did the best he could, and just couldn't deliver the final result? I expect a valid argument, not just cynicism.


> You believe love can be above everything. Good for you. Your point is still moot though, applying your emotional logic to a fictional tale makes no sense.


Beren put love above the value of having a silmaril or the peril of getting one. You actually see no point about the value of love here? Didn't Tolkien call his wife Luthien?


> these plausible arguments, which incidentally you don't list


What do you mean I didn't list already? Here are the options I listed for Aragorn having descendants, even if he didn't become king:
- Luthien would have stayed with Beren even if he wouldn't have succeeded in his quest - heck, even if he wouldn't have started it; why wouldn't Arwen do the same? any reason not to behave like Luthien?
- Arwen would have had Aragorn's children, even if they weren't together;
- Aragorn could have simply remarried. - any logical reason to dismiss this?
As a student of politics, I assume you read Noam Chomsky. Can you tell us what "unimaginative projection" means?


> there are a myriad miracles (and miracles DO abound in Arda) and good conditions which would have helped *Aragorn king becoming king, even with a hostile steward around AND avoiding a new kin-strife*.I bet you can think of an example or two of other less-likely things which DID happen in Arda


I still believe in you hehe. By the way, are you capable of giving us examples of real-world coups d'etat which didn't bring any "kin-strife"? Choose any period of history and any country you like. Or there aren't any such?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 18, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> Here are definitions of intimidation
> (www.dictionary.com):
> To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats.
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/intimidate?view=uk
> ...



Thorondor: I'm not sure I'm following you here. The exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf to which you refer occurs at a point where Gandalf has growing suspicions about Bilbo's Ring, but still doesn't know its true identity for certain. I don't think Gandalf has any intention of "forcing" Bilbo to give up the Ring: he is of the understanding that Bilbo had already agreed to do so of his own free will. He is therefore both surprised and disturbed by the fact that Bilbo has not kept his word, and also by Bilbo's belligerence towards him--which is most out-of-character. Gandalf is angered by Bilbo's belligerence, and Bilbo is intimidated by Gandalf's demeanour--which, from Bilbo's perspective, is most out-of-character for Gandalf (that's what I think Inder means). As Bilbo himself admits, he has never seen Gandalf act like that before. Gandalf, for his part, has never seen Bilbo behave so oddly, and it convinces him with every passing moment that the Ring is having a malevolent effect upon his friend, and that he must persuade Bilbo--i.e. by force of argument--to pass it on. He is not trying to rob Bilbo, remember: he is trying to help him. But Bilbo, if he chooses, can yet walk out of the front door of Bag End bearing the Ring. He doesn't, though: he gives it up of his own free will. As I read the scene, he makes this choice not because he is afraid of what Gandalf might do to him if he chooses otherwise, but because he himself is disturbed by the effect the Ring is having upon him.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 18, 2005)

This is a translation, so bare with me:



> Gandalf's eyes glittered:
> -I don't need much to loose my temper, he said. Say that again and I will really be angry. Then, you shall see Gandalf the Grey without a mask.
> He took one step towards the hobbit and he suddenly seemed to rise in a threatening manner; his shadow filled the small room.
> ... the air in the room seemed to be on fire...


Bilbo doesn't want to give the ring, he even shouts that he won't; Gandalf behaves threateningly, and from the very words of the wizard, the hobbit understands there is more to come. 
This is a show of force on behalf of Gandalf, period. Besides what he already says and does, he already implies he will do more - you will see Gandalf the Grey without a mask. 
Here are definitions of intimidation 
(www.dictionary.com):
To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats. 
http://www.ask*oxford*.com/concise_oed/intimidate?view=uk
frighten or overawe, especially so as to coerce into doing something. 

Imagine a wizard rising threateningly, and how you suddenly feel the air of the room on fire. Even in law, an act done under the threat of force or such, is invalid. 
According to quote, Gandalf did intimidate. In the english language (and not only I presume) intimidation is a form of coercion. So Gandalf will use certain forms of coercion, at certain times.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 18, 2005)

> This is fun, though I will try never to become as cynical as you are.



This is fun; I will try never to become as glib and narrow-minded as you are.

*For he gave it up in the end of his own accord*

*But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history had gone beyond playing, and really done it*

*'Let you? Make You? said the wizard 'Haven't you been listening to a word I have said?'*

*And I could not make you, unless by force, which would break your mind'*

It is pretty clear that in the end Bilbo gave it away of his own free will. But of course, there seems to be two different versions of the story. Tolkien's and your "imaginative" re-editing of the story to fit your own ends. 



> Can you deny that Thingol sent Beren on that quest exactly because: he didn't want to give Luthien therefore gave an impossible quest, which could fortunately get Beren killed? When the quest was given, Thingol was very fond of its fulfillment!



*sigh* How many times do I have to explain this to you. "Oh no Beren didn't complete the quest as a whole"-are you incapable of looking at the bigger picture? Beren's achievement, probably the greatest achievement of any incarnate being EVER, meant Thingol had to accept his proposal because it was blatantly obvious that he had proved himself worthy of Lúthien. But no, I bet you will come back with the same old rhetoric. 

"What if he, like Beren, tried, did the best he could, and just couldn't deliver the final result? I expect a valid argument, not just cynicism

Let us explore how Aragorn would "try his best" to fulfil his task. Elrond, first of all explicitly tells him that he will have no wife unless he fulfils his task-to become king. He then tells him he will not marry Arwen unless he re-unites the kingdoms and defeats Sauron. This was before any notion of the ring came up. So Aragorn would have to defeat Sauron in battle. No when one tries to defeat another person in battle one is either the victor or the loser. So in trying to defeat Sauron Aragorn would (most probably) be killed in battle. Aragorn cannot marry Arwen when he is dead. What if he escapes you say? Even then his claim would not be legitimate. His armies would have been routed and Sauron would assume dominance. Aragorn would have failed in his task. Arwen could not stay in Middle-Earth when it was under Sauron's dominion-neither Aragorn nor Elrond would allow it. First of all the issue of Aragorn's promise to Elrond means he will not allow her to stay with him. Secondly, he would be again become a ranger, he would have no fixed abode, Sauron would use all his force to hunt him down-Aragorn could not hide from Sauron for very long. Why would he subject Arwen to certain death and the life of a nomad for a few months? (at best) Aragorn either triumphed or failed. 

"Beren put love above the value of having a silmaril or the peril of getting one. You actually see no point about the value of love here? Didn't Tolkien call his wife Luthien?"

Non sequitur.

"Luthien would have stayed with Beren even if he wouldn't have succeeded in his quest - heck, even if he wouldn't have started it; why wouldn't Arwen do the same? any reason not to behave like Luthien?"

Non sequitur. Why didn't Beren and Lúthien just run off anyway, disregarding the quest? Ho-hum.


"Arwen would have had Aragorn's children, even if they weren't together"

Tolkien was a strict Catholic. Sex outside marriage was a SIN. Elves did not have sex outside marriage PERIOD. 

"Aragorn could have simply remarried. - any logical reason to dismiss this?"

The logic lies in Aragorn's heart. He loved Arwen; to him there was no-body else. Besides if he doesn't marry Arwen it means he fails in his task, therefore he is doomed.

"As a student of politics, I assume you read Noam Chomsky. Can you tell us what "unimaginative projection" means?"

You assume wrong. I (thankfully) haven't had to come across Mr. Chomsky yet, he doesn't really appeal to me.

"I still believe in you hehe"

Er...haha?  

"By the way, are you capable of giving us examples of real-world coups d'etat which didn't bring any "kin-strife"? Choose any period of history and any country you like. Or there aren't any such?"

Non sequitur. What do you mean by kinstrife? In fact what do you mean? What has it go to do with the topic at hand?


----------



## Gothmog (May 18, 2005)

Thorondor. There seems to be a problem with your translation. In my books the quote is as follows (placed in context)



> 'Well, if you want my ring yourself, say so!' cried Bilbo. 'But you won't get it. I won't give my precious away, I tell you.' His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword.
> * Gandalf's eyes flashed. It will be my turn to get angry soon,' he said. If you say that again, I shall. Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked.' He took a step towards the hobbit, and he seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room.*



This was not Gandalf attempting to force Bilbo to give up the ring but Gandalf reacting to Bilbo's claim that he wanted it for himself. The passage goes on to say


> Bilbo backed away to the wall, breathing hard, his hand clutching at his pocket. They stood for a while facing one another, and the air of the room tingled. Gandalf's eyes remained bent on the hobbit. Slowly his hands relaxed, and he began to tremble.
> 'I don't know what has come over you, Gandalf,' he said. 'You have never been like this before. What is it all about? It is mine isn't it? I found it, and Gollum would have killed me, if I hadn't kept it. I'm not a thief, whatever he said.'
> 'I have never called you one,' Gandalf answered. 'And I am not one either. I am not trying to rob you, but to help you. I wish you would trust me, as you used.' He turned away, and the shadow passed. He seemed to dwindle again to an old grey man, bent and troubled.



After this we get to the point where Gandalf again tries to persuade Bilbo to give up the ring.


> Bilbo drew his hand over his eyes. I am sorry,' he said. 'But I felt so queer. And yet it would be a relief in a way not to be bothered with it any more. It has been so growing on my mind lately. Sometimes I have felt it was like an eye looking at me. And I am always wanting to put it on and disappear, don't you know; or wondering if it is safe, and pulling it out to make sure. I tried locking it up, but I found I couldn't rest without it in my pocket. I don't know why. And I don't seem able to make up my mind.'
> 'Then trust mine,' said Gandalf. 'It is quite made up. Go away and leave it behind. Stop possessing it. Give it to Frodo, and I will look after him.'
> Bilbo stood for a moment tense and undecided. Presently he sighed. 'All right,' he said with an effort. I will.' Then he shrugged his shoulders, and smiled rather ruefully. 'After all that's what this party business was all about, really: to give away lots of birthday presents, and somehow make it easier to give it away at the same time. It hasn't made it any easier in the end, but it would be a pity to waste all my preparations. It would quite spoil the joke.'


So Gandalf did not use force to get Bilbo to give up the ring. He only showed annoyance at Bilbo's mistaken idea that he wanted the ring for himself.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 18, 2005)

Are you here to test my heart with your insults Inderjit? I forgive you and I bless you.


"Event in question": Aragorn becoming king, even with a hostile steward around, and while Sauron isn't defeated in any manner and at any level.

Possible?

Yes.

One "minor" way: words/song. These prove to be one of the simplest yet most effective ways of turning around the history of Arda and not only. Examples:
- first with a song, later with words, various Ainur and Maiar were convinced to denounce God;
- Osse was convinced through word to switch sides several times;
- through a song, Luthien change THE WHOLE RULE OF THE WORLD, when Mandos allowed her to return to Middle-Earth, together with Beren;
- through a song, Luthien put the whole kingdom of darkness under her spell, together with one who once was the greatest Ainu;
- through words, Feanor changed the hearts of the noldor on several ocasions; other elven leaders did this also;
- through words, the hearts of entire populations of humans were changed;
- through words, Saruman could do almost anything with his listeners;

Time and again, the power of words/songs was proven to be above circumstances or other powers. And Aragorn could very well use this power, no reason not to - he is a descendant of Luthien 

I am in debt with providing a list of events which were less likely to happen then the "event in question" (Aragorn becoming king...), but did happen:
- 3 hobbits getting hold of the most powerful item in the whole of Arda;
- a bunch of hobbits destroying the most powerful object in Arda, under Sauron's nose;
- a woman and a hobbit killing the most powerful Nazgul;
- the hobbits being saved from the spell of one of the most powerful trees;
- two hobbits going to Valinor;
- a human and a descendant of a Maia tricking/defeating Melkor, and later returing for a second life;
And these events, no matter how *improbable*, DID occur.

The list can be very long.. My point? There is at least one important tool Aragorn has (at least through his ascendancy to Luthien) and this is words/song. Even if for some reason he wouldn't/couldn't use it, there is loong list of other more important events, more improbable, and more significant than a mere change of rule at a certain city in Middle-Earth.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 18, 2005)

Good points Gothmog and thank you for giving a more accurate quote of the text. 


> He only showed annoyance


I doubt he only showed annoyance. When Gandalf is annoyed, he is rude/rough, but he hardly threatens.

I identify several signs of the show of force in an angry state of mind, on behalf of someone who Bilbo recognized was more powerful than he was, in any way imaginable:
- flashing eyes;
- threat of showing an "ugly" side: *Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked;*
*- may I also mentioned the air was burning? I don't think it's that insignificant 
**- *the use of the discrepancy of height: *he seemed to grow tall; his shadow filled the little room *(imagine the little hobbit near Gandalf)
- further show of force: *and menacing*

Quite a show of force, esspecially through the eyes of a hobbit.

So there are two possibilities:
- Gandalf used this show of force to intimidate Bilbo into giving away the ring; this is not acknowledged by Gandalf (is it possible that he is not aware of this possibility) but still probable;
- Gandalf used this show of force to intimidate Bilbo into not accusing him of wanting a thing; does an offence justify such an outburst of force? What could justify this? His inflated ego? Who scare the heck out of a friend just to prove that: Hey, I am the big guy, and just because I am the big guy, you can't say certain things about me. Not too democratic and respectful of free will. And it was the free will of Bilbo to accuse Gandalf of anything he wanted; why did the wizard choose not to answer in a diplomatic way, but chose to to squash the right of the hobbit to free speech, which is just another expression of the free will?

The funny thing is that, either way, Gandalf used intimidation for whatever purpose, I don't care which. He was capable of coercion, be it an important thing (like giving the ring away) or a less significant thing (countering calumny).


----------



## Inderjit S (May 18, 2005)

Thorondor it is blatantly obvious you are not listening to me. Now the original argument was that Aragorn didn't contest the kingship because of Sauron's threat and the possibility of a civil war. You claim the latter wasn't important. I refuted the claim. I backed it up. You diverged. You started to talk about Beren. I refuted that. You started talking about Arwen. I refuted that. You started talking about Bilbo and Gandalf. Several members refuted that. If you are unwilling to accept that then that is your problem, not mine. 

After asking me why I thought Aragorn and Arwen couldn't get married if he failed in his task I gave you an answer. You then go on to say "Anything can happen in Middle-Earth." You give examples of miracles. All very nice and well. I was not arguing against miracles. I was arguing against your logic. These miracles have little to do with Aragorn's mission. You claim that lots of strange things happened in Middle-Earth. Big deal. What has that or any of your points got to do with Aragorn. I claimed that if Aragorn did manage to gain the kingship and went to war against Sauron he would in all probability lose. I presume you agree with me since you stated so yourself. 

As far as I know after I refute your points using the books you claim "Oh anything can happen in Middle-Earth, woddja woddja woo!" Perhaps Sauron would have married Shelob and they would have had the great love-child poasfjasjfpoasjp who becomes queen of the fairies and lord of the Orkish Boleshivks of Bolhseviks Dundundun. Stranger things have happened! Or not. Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. You cannot refute the logic of the books and insert your own interpretation in as you see fit when it contradicts the book. What was Aragorn going to do? Sing the Orks to death? Was he going to sing his Gondor song in front of the Black Gates till they broke?

I am withdrawing myself from this thread. Post whatever you want to. Bye. 

Oh and on the coercion thing, if he had force Bilbo to give up the ring it would have broke his mind. Guess that doesn't matter to you though huh?

Bye.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 19, 2005)

Let's state the point of argument:

You: Aragorn can become king only if there is no hostile steward around.
Me: Aragorn can plausibly become king even if there is a such a hostile steward around.

About your post:
"You claim the latter (possibility of a civil war) wasn't important. " 
When did I say that?
"You diverged. You started to talk about Beren. I refuted that"
You only said that Thingol acknowledged the effort of Beren, but didn't have to acknowledge the fact that he failed to deliver. Both Thingol AND Beren didn't hold their promise, because agreement was that: Thingol agrees to their marriage IF Beren delivers a silmaril. They both trespassed this agreement. You are applying double standards, in one case a promise breaking can be accepted, in the other, it can't; in one case, the effort itself couts, in the other, it doesn't. That's not coherent. You don't know the extent of Aragorn's own effort in order to compare it with the extent of Beren's *OWN* effort. What would have Beren done if there wasn't for Luthien around? If you say that Thingol rewarded the effort, then he rewarded the effort of Luthien, because what *she *did was greater than any army previously did.
"started talking about Arwen. I refuted that" You hardly refuted that. In Tolkien's *work *and *life*, Luthien's unconditional love and following of Beren were above all. Tolkien called his wife Luthien. If Luthien can follow Beren no matter what, so can Arwen follow Aragorn no matter what - because so did (or would) Tolkien's wife also.
"You started talking about Bilbo and Gandalf. Several members refuted that; Oh and on the coercion thing, if he had force Bilbo to give up the ring it would have broke his mind. ". No, several members said that Gandalf was intimidating Bilbo for something else than giving away the ring. It doesn't matter for what purpose Gandalf intimidated - whatever was the case Gandalf would intimidate/coerce if he chose so, I have already stated this. My point was that Gandalf would help Aragorn become king, even through intimidation, if he chose so.
"Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. You cannot refute the logic of the books". It is the very logic of Tolkien that words and true love are above anything else. This cannot be refuted. Based on the power of the words and true love, Aragorn can become king and marry Arwen, or just marry Arwen because their love is above any quest, just like in the case of Beren and Luthien. And Beren and Luthien's case cannot be refuted by anything, they are the prime example that words and true love can be above any circumstance or any power.
" What was Aragorn going to do? Sing the Orks to death? Was he going to sing his Gondor song in front of the Black Gates till they broke?" You exceeded the limits of our argument. We were talking about Aragorn becoming king with a hostile steward around, not about what would he do afterwards. In the actual story, if Sauron wasn't defeated, then Aragorn wouldn't have time to spend with Arwen as king anyway. 

Why would you consider Aragorn becoming king just through words to be necessarily a *miracle *in the sense it was improbable? No, the miracle lies in the very power of the words. Even in nowadays, with words you can convince people to go to war and give their lives. And convincing one to give one's life or to consider the loss of life as acceptable is a far less accomplishment than to a agree to a mere change of rule. Even today, words themselves can verily change the course of history. And you mentioned several times realpolitik. Well, aren't words one of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) tool in politics? Aragorn gaining the throne then - or for that matter even now - just through words is very possible. And the final argument for giving words a supreme power in Tolkien's world (and I am gonna have an extasy saying this) .... is that Tolkien himself, before being a writer, .....was....... a ............................... PHILOLOGIST!!! He himself stated that he created this universe because he first and foremost wanted to study the miracle of language itself.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 19, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> No, several members said that Gandalf was intimidating Bilbo for something else than giving away the ring.



First, can I ask out of sheer curiosity: you said you're reading a translation of LOTR. In what language? There is no mention of "air burning" in the English language version. (Tingling, yes, but not burning.)

I don't think any member was arguing that Gandalf intended to intimidate Bilbo: it would be more accurate to say that Gandalf grew angry, and the Bilbo "felt" intimidated by (i.e. in response to) Gandalf's demeanour. So you really couldn't use this scene in order to argue that Gandalf resorts to coercion or intimidation to achieve his ends--at least, not where Gandalf's friends and Sauron's enemies are concerned. Gandalf had been angry at other times: some found the experience intimidating or at least daunting (e.g. Thorin in "The Quest for Erebor," _Unifinished Tales_; and Pippin in Moria); others did not (e.g. Denethor).


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 19, 2005)

I was translating from Romanian 



> I don't think any member was arguing that Gandalf intended to intimidate Bilbo: it would be more accurate to say that Gandalf grew angry, and the Bilbo "felt" intimidated by (i.e. in response to) Gandalf's demeanour.
> some found the experience intimidating or at least daunting: (e.g. Thorin in "The Quest for Erebor," _Unifinished Tales_; and Pippin in Moria)


 
The case that you mentioned really show people who were intimidated by Gandalf. Do you think Gandalf could intimidate without being aware he does so, and against his will to do so?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 19, 2005)

My response to this post last night seems to have disappeared.



Thorondor_ said:


> The case that you mentioned really show people who were intimidated by Gandalf. Do you think Gandalf could intimidate without being aware he does so, and against his will to do so?



I don't think I can add anything further than what I have said already. Gandalf doesn't resort to coercion to persuade people--particularly his friends and Sauron's enemies--to do what he wants. He didn't (and couldn't) with Bilbo: Bilbo gave up the Ring because he finally saw sense. He wouldn't use coercion, intimidation, or force to win the throne of Gondor for Aragorn: because that wasn't why he was sent to Middle-earth--and of all the Wizards, Gandalf remained truest to his mission.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 20, 2005)

I believe too that none of us can add any more arguments to our positions. In my conclusion, I would just like to underscore the fact that at least when talking to Bilbo in the Shire, he behaved menacingly toward his friend, as the text actually states. More than that, I can't further speculate.


----------



## Meselyn (Jun 14, 2005)

If you ever plan to play The Third Age. Gandalfs narrating gives a small hint as to why they didn't go to Minas Tirith. Gandalf says something along the lines of, "I planned to weave a great war." So he had the whole quest planned.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 15, 2005)

Meselyn said:


> If you ever plan to play The Third Age. Gandalfs narrating gives a small hint as to why they didn't go to Minas Tirith. Gandalf says something along the lines of, "I planned to weave a great war." So he had the whole quest planned.


 
Could you be more specific? Where he said that, or at least a more complete quote?


----------



## Meselyn (Jun 15, 2005)

It's in the beginng of the third age video game. He talks about weaving a plan for a great war.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 15, 2005)

Aragorn knew that he had a great task to do, but he would not take the throne till he knew more. He wandered far and wide, exploring the hearts of men, good and bad. He after wandering far, deciced to lead the rangers, he did not go to minas tirth, as he feared the stewards reaction, and what would happen to gondor.
His home was in the north, and there he lead the rangers as that was what he felt he should do.
Thorondor_ , Gandalf did not intimadate bilbo, i think that when he grew tall, he was using the ring of fire, and thus giving bilbo the courage to part from the ring, as he was scared to leave his precious.


Meselyn said:


> If you ever plan to play The Third Age. Gandalfs narrating gives a small hint as to why they didn't go to Minas Tirith. Gandalf says something along the lines of, "I planned to weave a great war." So he had the whole quest planned


I have this game, but i realy doubt it's reality, it was written by a video game maker. If you think, the great war was not woven by gandalf, he himself got caught up. Even the moive did not show it as gandalf v sauron. This is the same game where a man fights and defeats the witch king in osgilath, so it is not that true to the plot.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 19, 2005)

> Thorondor_ , Gandalf did not intimadate bilbo, i think that when he grew tall, he was using the ring of fire, and thus giving bilbo the courage to part from the ring, as he was scared to leave his precious.


The "indimidating Gandalf"-issue raises its head again . What's *your* definition of intimidation?


----------

