# Would Sam have been a better Ringbearer?



## Wood Elf (Mar 23, 2002)

I apoligize if this thread has been done already, but would Sam have been better than Frodo at accomplishing this task?

Sam was of less social stature than Frodo, so he really wouldn't be interested in power. Also, I know Frodo was more aware of the dangers they were in, moreso than any of the other hobbits, and knew what was at hand. Sam wasn't as aware, but wouldn't that maybe work to his advantage? 

Maybe I am wrong here, I am seeing, because Frodo's awareness of the dangers they are getting into, and the realization of what has to be done, and how important this mission is, puts Frodo a notch above the other hobbits as a Ring-bearer candidate. He knows, and is walking into the dangers fully aware and awake of what he is to do, and what it will involve. Sam would go into the dangers somewhat 'blinded', not totally aware, and therefore might fail when it got really bad. He doesn't fail, but that is him accompaning Frodo who has the ring. It might have been very different had Sam had the Ring himself. 

Okay, now that I am done, and have disproven my own point, I will go back into my lurking state, and learn from all you smart people, that maybe someday I can know as much as you can..


----------



## daisy (Mar 23, 2002)

I think it is a tough call if you only look at it as a matter of chance that Frodo got to be ringbearer in thei first place - 
Sam's lesser intelligence, lesser age, and total loyalty and devoption to the Shire and his friends would seem to make him as good a ringbearer as any - he did not concern himself much with the weighty matters of world annihilation if they failed in their quest - he worried about whether Frodo had enough to eat! So physically and mentally maybe he could have made it...

Yet I subscribe to the notion that Frodo was the pre-ordained ring-bearer in some way - Bilbo gets the ring, a hobbit who just happens to know Gandalf, and then Frodo is given the ring even though Gandalf is not quite sure whether it is the ring....and there it is - Frodo is the ringbearer and is carried through his quest through a series of fateful events and meetings.

So I think Sam would have been a-okay if it had been up to anyone in the first place - and actually Sam was the ringbearer for a pretty important part of the whole adventure.


----------



## Niniel (Mar 24, 2002)

Frodo was better as a Ringbearer, I suppose, because he knows a lot more about where they are going, and very important, he is able to speak tactfully. That comes in very handy on more than one occasion, escpecially to get Gollum to help them and to persuade Faramir to let them o their task. Sam would never have gotten either of them to help them (when sepaking to Faramir he blows it immediately by saying they are carrying the Ring). So Frodo's intellectual qualities make him a better Ringbearer. Fo the rest it doesn't really matter, Sam would be just as resilient to the Ring's power than Frodo, I suppose.
And it was natural that he would be it, because he was Bilbo's cousin, so indeed he was 'meant' to do it.


----------



## Arvedui (Jul 15, 2003)

*bump*


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 15, 2003)

Sure thing. Anyways, even though the superly boring Frodo is superly boring, it should be obvious that he's a better Ringbearer type than the evil sam. Somebody already explained the achingly great reason. The evil sam wouldn't have gotten Gollum the Hero to help them out.


----------



## Feanorian (Jul 15, 2003)

The reason I see Sam as a better ring bearer is because he was hesitant enough to leave the Shire although he did want to see elves. He probably would not have gone had he not had a great love for Frodo and his well being. In fact Frodo didn't want to take him it was out of his devotion that he did.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 15, 2003)

You say that the evil sam would be a better Ringbearer type just because he's hesitant and had love for the superly boring Frodo? I don't get it. Do you think that the evil sam would get Gollum the Hero to help him out? I doubt it. Or are we deciding that the superly boring Frodo gets to come even if he's not the Ringbearer type? Whoops. oh well. I don't want to make the evil sam look good. I'd better leave.


----------



## Feanorian (Jul 15, 2003)

Blast. I meant to say that he would not be a very good ring bearer for all of those reasons. He was in my opinion too "soft" at the beginning of the journey.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 15, 2003)

Phew. I was confused for about two seconds. Maybe I won't leave. Yay Gollum! I won't toss a Yay at the superly boring Frodo, though. Gollum was definitely the coolest Ringbearer type of all type.


----------



## Captain (Jul 23, 2003)

No, I think Frodo had the strength, and Sam was loyal enough to carry him through it. It was perfect.


----------



## ely (Jul 23, 2003)

I agree that Sam wouldn't have been a better Ringbearer. He didn't have the right character for that. He was too mild and not that quick-witted. Not that he was stupid, but he didn't think how things might end up, what his deeds might cause.


----------



## Celebthôl (Jul 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Arvedui _
> **bump* *



Weh? does that mean it was merged?


Well the way i see it is Sam was not to smart, therefore he although being resouceful (sp) would not have done the task, he would have killed Gollum etc, i dont think it would have been wise, when all is said and done....Sam is...well...dumb.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 23, 2003)

Resourceful. Anyways, Woah! When do you think that the evil sam ever would have been able to kill poor Smeagol just because he was holding the One Ring? Sounds crazy to me.


----------



## Celebthôl (Jul 24, 2003)

He came very close didnt he?
Even without the ring, i swear he either broke or nearly broke Gollums are right? When he hit it with his stick that Faramir gave him.


----------



## Feanorian (Jul 24, 2003)

> Weh? does that mean it was merged?



In case you havent been informed. *Bump* means that the thread is brought back up to the top so it can be viewed again and posted on. 



> He came very close didnt he?



Kinda but the One Ring did not make very much of a difference for the hobbits, just invisibility and a whole lota shadows. Remember how Frodo put on the One Ring and Gollum still smelt him out and bit off his finger and took it. Sam would have a slight advantage but whose to say it would have been enough.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 24, 2003)

So, what, you're thinking that just because the evil sam would be carrying the One Ring in this scenario, he'd be able to kill poor Smeagol? Sounds crazy to me. Isn't the superly boring Frodo still around in this scenario?


----------



## Feanorian (Jul 24, 2003)

No I am saying the one ring would not help Sam very much if he were to fight your poor Smeagol.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 24, 2003)

Whoops. I was talking to the Celebthol person. Should have said that. oh well.


----------



## Feanorian (Jul 24, 2003)

Opps. My fault. I should have known you were talking to the illogical Feanor-hater.


----------



## elithraniel (Aug 2, 2003)

I'd just like to comment:
Frodo was the person meant to be the ringbearer. Nothing would have been the same if it was Sam. 
PLUS:
Lord of the Rings would have not been the same, or the way Tolkien intended it. With Frodo as the Ringbearer everything is the way it was meant to be!


----------



## Feanorian (Aug 2, 2003)

> I'd just like to comment:
> Frodo was the person meant to be the ringbearer. Nothing would have been the same if it was Sam.
> PLUS:
> Lord of the Rings would have not been the same, or the way Tolkien intended it. With Frodo as the Ringbearer everything is the way it was meant to be!



But of course elithraniel, we would not like it any other way...........except for Yaygollum and that whole death of Smeagol thing . But it is always interesting to discuss the what if's? and the how abouts? Thats what makes LOTR such a great and fun thing to talk about......you never run out of stuff to talk about.


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 3, 2003)

Sure, that Lord Of The Rings story would have been nice if poor Smeagol didn't have to die and was able to get better and live in the Shire for forever, but no, it wouldn't have been as achingly fitting if he didn't save the day in the end. I'd only want to change one word. Fell. *sniff*


----------



## Feanorian (Aug 3, 2003)

I dont think Smeagol could live in the Shire....not enough fishess.


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 6, 2003)

Do what? They had riverses. Normal nasssty hobbitses were afraid of the water. Poor Smeagol would have them all to himself.


----------



## Dwarf Lord (Aug 6, 2003)

Well, The way i see it sam is not a dull-witted, stupid hobit he is as is butterber, that is more then he seems. No seems to recall the instances where frodo would have easily failed had it not been for sam. SHELOB!!! That's one of my favorite parts of the book. I think sam with the aid of the ring, and frodo as his faithful companion would have pulled through. Indeed the story would have been alot different, and not for the better I think.


DWARF LORD


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 7, 2003)

And not for the better, you think. Got it. So you agree with me. Yay! Anyways, no, I wouldn't definitely say that the evil sam was more of a dull-witted and stupid hobit than that poor Barliman dude was. Since Barliman was a human. *hides* Also, yes, I like the scene with Shelob, too. Gollum was so close to strangling the evil sam!


----------



## Dwarf Lord (Aug 7, 2003)

You mistook my words Yay. I was saying that sam is like barliman in that he may appear stupid or dul witted, but they both are very intelligent, and more then they seem. 
Anywho I personally think that smeagol could live in the shire. Do you not recall when the spell of the ring over gollum was nearly broken. Gollum reached out to touch frodo because the old weary hobbit had risen up in him, and he for an instant was alike to both the hobbits. But of course sam awoke and took the gesture the wrong way. I often wonder what would have happened if sam had not woken and yelled at gollum.

DWARF LORD


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 7, 2003)

Ah. Got it. Well, no, I would say that the evil sam is definitely what he seems to be. Anyways, no, I do not recall the scene that you're talking about.  I really need to go read these bookses again.  Craziness. If the evil sam wasn't so evil, Gollum would have even more obviously become the hero.


----------



## Dwarf Lord (Aug 7, 2003)

You never know. Maybe gollum would have excepted the fait of the ring and allowed it to be thrown away. THe passage of which I speak is right before they enter shelobs layer when they rest after climbing the many stairs. 
Sam is a very hard character to know his mind. At first he seems a bit foolish, and less understanding of everything. But when all the plight of mordor has besieged him he becomes more valiant, and in a way most of doings make sense. But we shall never know, unless the great Tolkien writes a parallel story from his grave.


DWARF LORD


----------



## Gigantor (Apr 5, 2017)

Wood Elf said:


> I apoligize if this thread has been done already, but would Sam have been better than Frodo at accomplishing this task?
> 
> Sam was of less social stature than Frodo, so he really wouldn't be interested in power. Also, I know Frodo was more aware of the dangers they were in, moreso than any of the other hobbits, and knew what was at hand. Sam wasn't as aware, but wouldn't that maybe work to his advantage?
> 
> ...


Yeah Sam would have been a better Ring-bearer. He was kinda dense so the Ring wouldn't get to him maybe. Frodo was not a good pick for the job. He was kind of a jerk to Sam later on. Gollum didn't help w/ that.


----------



## basti255 (Aug 8, 2017)

I think Frodo is a far better choice, the ring would have corrupted Sam pretty easily. Sam is one of my favorite characters, but as a ring bearer - I don't think it would turn out okay. Frodo was more sensitive, yes, but also more gentle.


----------



## Mirak Dagan (Aug 20, 2017)

Imo, yes. Sam would have been a better Ring bearer but eventually, the Ring will consume him like it did to Frodo, no matter how brave and strong resisting will Sam has.


----------



## EcthelionL (Aug 21, 2017)

In my opinion, Frodo AND Sam were intended to bear the ring - neither could have completed the task without the other. Another major theme of Tolkien, based on his religious faith, is divine providence (or fate). 'Luck' intervenes at important moments so that just the right thing happens. It was 'intended' that Sam accompany Frodo to Mordor, just as it was 'intended' that Bilbo find the ring.

I also think that Frodo and Sam's relationship mirrors the British class system of the Victorian and Edwardian age (Tolkien's early years). The professor himself served as an officer in the trenches during Word War One and would have had a bat man (an 'assistant/companion' from the lower ranks) to take care of the mundane/common sense/day-to-day practicalities while he himself was concerned with more important matters. Sam is Frodo's bat man. It's a middle class vs lower class relationship, just like (in civilian life at the time) the master vs servant one.

For good or ill, those days of class here in the UK are long gone and there seems to be an enmity between the two now - maybe there was then but Tolkien only focused on the good he saw (at least in Frodo and Sam - the Scourging of the Shire has an 'us and them' air to it').

Oh, I'm digressing! I'll shut up now.


----------



## basti255 (Aug 21, 2017)

You made very good points!


----------



## Yalerd (Jan 6, 2018)

Wood Elf said:


> I apoligize if this thread has been done already, but would Sam have been better than Frodo at accomplishing this task?
> 
> Sam was of less social stature than Frodo, so he really wouldn't be interested in power. Also, I know Frodo was more aware of the dangers they were in, moreso than any of the other hobbits, and knew what was at hand. Sam wasn't as aware, but wouldn't that maybe work to his advantage?
> 
> ...


I don't think you could deny he would have certainly been at the very least an adequate ring bearer, but his ability in assisting Frodo as a Ring Bearer, someone who was his employer and who he cared for very much, maybe surpasses that


----------



## Daniel Thomas (Feb 5, 2018)

I think that he for sure would have been a better ring bearer he as said in the book has a very pure soul. He also listened to directions very well. he also is very tough and cares about others.


----------



## BalrogRingDestroyer (Mar 10, 2018)

daisy said:


> I think it is a tough call if you only look at it as a matter of chance that Frodo got to be ringbearer in thei first place -
> Sam's lesser intelligence, lesser age, and total loyalty and devoption to the Shire and his friends would seem to make him as good a ringbearer as any - he did not concern himself much with the weighty matters of world annihilation if they failed in their quest - he worried about whether Frodo had enough to eat! So physically and mentally maybe he could have made it...
> 
> Yet I subscribe to the notion that Frodo was the pre-ordained ring-bearer in some way - Bilbo gets the ring, a hobbit who just happens to know Gandalf, and then Frodo is given the ring even though Gandalf is not quite sure whether it is the ring....and there it is - Frodo is the ringbearer and is carried through his quest through a series of fateful events and meetings.
> ...



I don't know about that. Sam thought of going back when he saw that the Shire was in danger, present or future, of running into trouble. I think the Ring would have picked up on that and used it to try and tempt him.


----------

