# Why didn't Elrond Kill Isildur and destroy the Ring?



## Erestor Arcamen (Oct 3, 2005)

Ok in the movie, Elrond took Isildur to the Cracks of Doom to destroy the Ring, and if memory serves right, he did it in the book too didn't he? Elrond knew that this Ring would bring the downfall of many nations and of the end of times for the elves, so why didn't he just kill Isildur and throw the Ring in or throw Isildur in himself? Elrond had the chance right there to destroy the Ring forever and avoid the thousands of years that it had brought destruction (Gollum, Bilbo, The Shire). And he could just tell the rest of Isildur's men that a band of orcs on their way into hiding from when Sauron had been annihilated, had overrun them and he alone had survived.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Why is it?*

At the council of Elrond it is not mentioned that Elrond had that chance:


> Isildur took it, as should not have been. It should have been cast then into Orodruin's fire nigh at hand where it was made. But few marked what Isildur did. He alone stood by his father in that last mortal contest; and by Gil-galad only Círdan stood, and I. But Isildur would not listen to our counsel. - This I will have as weregild for my father, and my brother, he said; and therefore whether we would or no, he took it to treasure it. But soon he was betrayed by it to his death


----------



## Firawyn (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Why is it?*

I waonder is Elrond didn't do anything bacause he was afriad that he too would be unable to throw it in, if it was in his hand. 

I also doubt that Elrond thought about it getting _lost_. I mean, maybe he was like 'Hey, I'll try and convince him to take it back later on...'

I really don't know.


----------



## Daranavo (Oct 3, 2005)

*Re: Why is it?*

Elrond would not take it for the same reason that Gandalf would not take it. They were in the known about its evil and true nature.


----------



## Elessar_uk (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: Why is it?*

i agree plus it would have been in total opposition to Elrond's character and the elven view of the sacredness and importance of life for him to just kill Isildur and throw the ring into the crack of doom. Also ownership of the Ring through the act of murder would surely have made the ring even more difficult to dispose of. Isnt the fact that Frodo and Sam to a certain extent are less corrupted by the ring because they accepted it in a more humble manner.


----------



## Daranavo (Oct 5, 2005)

Not to mention, if he tried, Isildur what of put it on and killed him. Elrond was no fool. Isildur was a skilled soldier.


----------



## Celebthôl (Oct 5, 2005)

If he had killed Isildur, then what would that have meant for the aliance between Man and Elves? All it would show is that you can have an aliance as long as the other party in it does exactly what you say. This isn't how it works, Isildur had a right to the Ring (as he "won" it) and it was up to him (Not Elrond, Círdan, or anyone else) what was to be done with it.
You can't just kill someone (especially the King of Men) just because they go against your council.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 5, 2005)

I wonder if Cirdan would have let Elrond do anything to Isildur. Or if the rest of the soldiers would have attacked Elrond afterwards.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Oct 5, 2005)

Elrond wouldn't really have had a reason to kill Isildur unless the latter displayed serious signs of using the Ring and setting himself up as the new Dark Lord.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 6, 2005)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> ...why didnt [Elrond] just kill Isildur and throw the Ring in or throw Isildur in himself?...Please answer!



For the same reason that Gandalf never took the Ring from Frodo (after the farewell party), rode an eagle to Mt. Doom and dropped it in the fire: there'd be nothing to read!  

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Oct 6, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> For the same reason that Gandalf never took the Ring from Frodo (after the farewell party), rode an eagle to Mt. Doom and dropped it in the fire: there'd be nothing to read!
> 
> Barley



Spoilsport!


----------



## Inderjit S (Oct 12, 2005)

I guess that even if in this case the means would have justified the end, the means i.e coercion would have lead to a even greater evil, because of the nature of the decision, and how it would be better to submit to Isildur's willfullness rather than force him to do something against his will-even though you think what you are doing is right.


----------



## Ingwë (Oct 12, 2005)

> At the council of Elrond it is not mentioned that Elrond had that chance:


But it is mentioned that Elrond was at the Battle so he could do something:


> _Shortened_
> *I was at the Battle of Dagorlad before the Black Gate of Mordor,* where we had the mastery;* I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin* where Gil-Galad died and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown, and *Isildur cut the Ring from his hand with the hilt-shard of his father's sword and took it for his own.*
> 'Isildur took it as should have not been. It should have been cast then in Orodruin's fire nigh at hand where it was made. But few marked what Isildur did. But Isildur would not listen to our councel
> ' 'This I will take as weregild for my father, and for my brother' he said'


I suppose that Elrond could take the Ring from Isildur and destroy it. It is not said that Sauron was killed on the top of Orodruin. It is said '*on the slopes of Orodruin' *and I think that Isildur has never been on the top of Orodruin. I mean that he didn't want to destroy the Ring. He just took it from Sauron's finger. So Elrond had the chance to take the One Ring but it wouldn't be easy to destroy it. Even if he use force to take the Ring from Isildur the soldiers will kill him. 
However, I think that Elrond shouldn't let Isildur go out with the Ring. Elrond is wise enough and he knows that the Ring has only one master and he is the Dark lord of Mordor. Isildur cannot control the One and soon he would fell into its shadow.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 12, 2005)

Ingwe, my remark was made in relation to Erestor's presuposition:


> in the movie, Elrond took Isildur to the Cracks of Doom to destroy the Ring, and if memory serves right, he did it in the book too didnt he? if not then this post is a waste of time kinda. ANyways, I have a question. Elrond knew that this Ring would bring the downfall of many nations and of the end of times for the elves and all, so why didnt he just kill Isildur and throw the Ring in or throw Isildur in himself? IT would be so simple! He, Elrond had the chance right there to destroy the Ring


----------



## Firawyn (Oct 12, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> For the same reason that Gandalf never took the Ring from Frodo (after the farewell party), rode an eagle to Mt. Doom and dropped it in the fire: there'd be nothing to read!
> 
> Barley




lol, agreed. Baley, you really need to stop being so smart!


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 12, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> For the same reason that Gandalf never took the Ring from Frodo (after the farewell party), rode an eagle to Mt. Doom and dropped it in the fire: there'd be nothing to read!
> 
> Barley



Mordor was outfitted with the latest SAM batteries. Smarten up 



Seriously, I had wondered myself. Elrond is in the vicinity, so why not intervene? Is the consensus being reached here that Elrond didn't realise the power the ring was exerting on Isildur? I'd agree with that. It would make sense that if Isildur thought he could control it and that it was no big thing, Elrond would be working with the same logic, albeit tempered by more wisdom. He obviously mistrusted the ring, but not to a great degree.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 12, 2005)

Elrond, I believe, trusted in the Greater Good. Using force to thwart the King of Men (as argued above) would have meant a fight to the death, as Isildur was already falling under the power of the Ring.

And the Greater Good came into force quite soon afterwards at the battle of the Gladden Fields, removing the Ring from all hands for a millennium and a half. The tale of Déagol and Sméagol - the next time the ring falls into anyone's hands - shows its power to invoke evil was unabated.

Imagine what the history of Middle-earth would have been during those years, if the Ring had been involved? Maybe Elrond felt in some way responsible. He harboured Isildur's heirs from then on...


----------



## Aglarband (Oct 12, 2005)

If you think about it maybe he didn't want the Ring destroyed if it was destroyed the Elves would essentialy lose their homes... I think it wasn't untill he was away from the Ring that he saw he that he should have done more.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 14, 2005)

That's a very good point! The strong depiction of Elrond pleading with Isildur in the film can mask the fact that no such dialogue is reported in the book. There is a strong indication, though, that Círdan and Elrond tried to offer counsel, and presumably they urged that the ring should be destroyed, as Elrond indicated earlier in the paragraph. 

But there is no indication of how strongly they put their case, or even that they had the opportunity to speak their counsel at all. "Would not listen" can mean a refusal to hear them at all, or to hear the counsel and pay it no heed. 

If Elrond and Círdan did not speak strongly, because of their fear for the power of the Elven rings, they would not have persuaded Isildur who was, through the handling of it, already possessive of the Ring.

However, I feel that of all the Elves, these two would have sacrificed all other powers to see the definite end of Sauron.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 14, 2005)

Perhaps those involved in this thread would be interested in a related discussion

Isildur's Fault?

Unfortunatly, there are some posts missing from it.

Would you permit me to reinstate them Walter? Please


----------



## Grond (Oct 14, 2005)

Aglarband said:


> If you think about it maybe he didn't want the Ring destroyed if it was destroyed the Elves would essentialy lose their homes... I think it wasn't untill he was away from the Ring that he saw he that he should have done more.


I don't know that I buy this argument. I seem to remember that Gil-galad had both of the Ring of Fire and the Ring of Air in his possession and only gave them Elrond and Cirdan near the end of the war. Elrond would not have used the power of his Ring to preserve Imladris until *after* the Last Alliance.

Cheers,

grond


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Oct 15, 2005)

I just don't think Elrond would have seen any good reason to intervene--certainly not to the point of killing or injuring Isildur. Isildur was at that point an ally or friend, and--as far as I can see--displayed (at that point) no signs of "turning" or ambitions of setting himself up as another Dark Lord. 

Given the letter that Gandalf reads thousands of years later, it is quite possible that Isildur didn't quite grasp the Ring's power or significance when he took it from Sauron--perhaps only the Wise had that knowledge. Thousands of years later, Gandalf would not force Frodo or Bilbo to relinquish the Ring: they would have to give it up of their own accord. There is, perhaps, an evil fate for those who would take the Ring from another by force: they either perish (e.g. Gollum, Boromir), or become Sauron themselves. Gandalf understood that: surely Elrond would have, also.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 15, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> I just don't think Elrond would have seen any good reason to intervene--certainly not to the point of killing or injuring Isildur. Isildur was at that point an ally or friend, and--as far as I can see--displayed (at that point) no signs of "turning" or ambitions of setting himself up as another Dark Lord.
> 
> Given the letter that Gandalf reads thousands of years later, it is quite possible that Isildur didn't quite grasp the Ring's power or significance when he took it from Sauron--perhaps only the Wise had that knowledge. Thousands of years later, Gandalf would not force Frodo or Bilbo to relinquish the Ring: they would have to give it up of their own accord. There is, perhaps, an evil fate for those who would take the Ring from another by force: they either perish (e.g. Gollum, Boromir), or become Sauron themselves. Gandalf understood that: surely Elrond would have, also.



One wonders how thoroughly Tolkien had thought out these ramifications at the time he wrote the passages. The fascinating thing about Tolkien was that he simply seemed to sit until something came bubbling up to consciousness, often surprising him as much as anyone. Tolkien is just about the only writer that comes to mind who depended almost solely upon such waiting around for ideas to burst into his awareness and then working them out, rather than sitting down and consciously planning out the story arc: beginning, middle and end. 

The basic technique of any story is to put a character into some sort of more or less dire situation and then work him out of it, either to success or to failure. But Tolkien simply waited until his subconscious came up with something for him to work with. This is a much more common thing among composers (although they too do a whole lot of conscious structural planning and predetermination of thematic material). It seems to be rare for a writer.

LOTR seems unique in the world of the long novel, to be based and dependent almost solely on spontaneous outpouring of the subconscious, rather than predesign. This is partly why it took him so long to write it: many times he was stumped for long periods of blankness: his subconscious was still working things out and had nothing to present to him — all he could do was wait.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 17, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> ...many times he was stumped for long periods of blankness: his subconscious was still working things out and had nothing to present to him — all he could do was wait.
> 
> Barley


I know that feeling! And reading through Letters of JRRT, he himself was often surprised at the interconnectedness (thx Mr. Adams) of his storylines - even to how The Hobbit, a childrens story written to amuse his son at boarding school, turned out to fit the Middle-earth jigsaw.

A mind that ran language construction in background was, I think, ideally suited to the unique (for a successful writer) storywriting techniques he used. 

Tolkien was more closely acquainted with Elrond and Isildur than anyone. I believe that the Betrayal in the time of Celebrimbor gave the Elves an insight into the One Ring (thanks to the Three) that made the prospect of any Elf taking the ring at all, let alone by force, very unlikely (though Galadriel admitted to being tempted in her relative youth), as they knew the risk that, upon taking up the Ring to destroy it, they risked being unable to complete the task.

Can anyone remind me who were the Elf ringbearers at the time of the betrayal? They were the ones, wearing Rings of Power that had not been molested by Sauron, who would have felt that treachery most keenly - the ones whose insight into the real nature of the One Ring and its 'relationship' with Sauron and the other rings would be the most complete; apart from Sauron himself.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Oct 17, 2005)

*Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?*

I have a request. Can we at least decide from the outset whether we are going to consider questions like these from "inside Middle-Earth", so to speak, engaging with a fictive world in the fullest possible sense--suspending disbelief and all that; or are we really just supposed to think about the question in terms of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?"

Because I certainly don't think about the question "Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?" in the sense of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?", but evidently some here do (nothing wrong with that, of course). And as a result, I think we end up talking at cross-purposes.


----------



## Grond (Oct 17, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> *Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?*
> 
> I have a request. Can we at least decide from the outset whether we are going to consider questions like these from "inside Middle-Earth", so to speak, engaging with a fictive world in the fullest possible sense--suspending disbelief and all that; or are we really just supposed to think about the question in terms of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?"
> 
> Because I certainly don't think about the question "Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?" in the sense of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?", but evidently some here do (nothing wrong with that, of course). And as a result, I think we end up talking at cross-purposes.


The thread starter would be the one to "redirect" the direction back to the stated question. As long as the starter doesn't object/intervene then propounding additional questions/theories is entirely okay. If you would like to "redirect" the dialogue, feel free to propound additional theories, ideas, propositions, etc. 

Cheers,

grond

P. S. Narrowly adhering to a thread's topic will maintain focus but will often severely limit the discussion.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 17, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> *Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?*Can we at least decide from the outset whether we are going to consider questions like these from "inside Middle-Earth", so to speak, engaging with a fictive world in the fullest possible sense--suspending disbelief and all that; or are we really just supposed to think about the question in terms of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?"



Excellent point! Going to the "outside" (as I often do) leads to less fun if one enjoys free speculation, but to more fun if one enjoys examining the nuts and bolts of Tolkien's thought processes, and the actual history of his writing process. Getting "into" Middle-earth as if everything is real puts us on an entirely different path. I'm up for either way, so which road shall we take?  After all, each one goes ever on and on! 

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Oct 17, 2005)

I don't want to redirect the dialogue. I was just making an observation that the fact that the topic can be interpreted in more than one way, and that--as a consequence--the discussion can veer off into multiple paths, can be lost on some, leading to confusion.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 18, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> I just don't think Elrond would have seen any good reason to intervene--certainly not to the point of killing or injuring Isildur...Thousands of years later, Gandalf would not force Frodo or Bilbo to relinquish the Ring: they would have to give it up of their own accord. There is, perhaps, an evil fate for those who would take the Ring from another by force...



And if Elves and Wizards had foresight and used it ... another complication! And how far ahead could they see, and to what extent, and did it always work? This surely would have been a crucial factor! I daresay it must have been limited, like their magic, which obviously wasn't powerful enough to eliminate war and tragedy during three Ages.

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 18, 2005)

Are we about to discuss foresight?

How about this from _Ósanwe-Kenta, Note 6_ where Pengolodh elaborates:


> No mind, he asserts, knows what is not in it. All that it has experienced is in it, though in the use of the Incarnate, dependant upon the instruments of the _hröa,_ some things may be 'forgotten,' not immediately available for recollection. But no part of the 'future' is there, for the mind cannot see it or have seen it: that is, a mind placed in time.


How would that fit in the question at hand?
Maybe Elrond is not speaking about what he should have done at the time in question, but talking from hindsight?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Oct 26, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> Are we about to discuss foresight?
> 
> How about this from _Ósanwe-Kenta, Note 6_ where Pengolodh elaborates:
> 
> ...



He's clearly talking from hindsight; the question remains, though--what counsel did he and Cirdan give to Isildur regarding the One Ring? Would they have been as aware of its power and its nature back then--compared with what the Wise knew about the Ring at the time of the Council of Elrond? How much would Saruman's research--when he was still to all appearances on their side--have contributed to this knowledge?


----------



## Daranavo (Nov 22, 2005)

I have learned some new information here. Elrond could never destroy the ring. He, elves, Gandalf, all were TERRIBLY susceptable to its power. It would of overcame them much quicker then it did Isilduir. 

Saruman wanted the ring for himself. Which was his reason for sending HIS orcs for the hobbits. He felt he could tap into its power. However flawed his thoughts were. He would of never had time enough to master it.


----------

