👑King Elessar's choice

[Arvedui]

LotR appendix B, Later events concerning the members of the Fellowship of the Ring

King Elessar issues an edict that Men are not to enter the Shire, and he makes it a free Land under the protection of the Northern Sceptre.

Is this an unwise move by King Elessar?


This is an old debate that took place between the Guild of Periaur and the Guild of Ost-in-Edhil. I hope that the rest of the membership will enjoy it as much as we did some 9 months ago. And I also hope that Nóm don't mind me posting this again...

And Aulë wil probably make sure that all knows who won...

 

[Arvedui]

*bump*

I really should think that there were someone on TTF who had thoughts on this subject?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

LotR appendix B, Later events concerning the members of the Fellowship of the Ring

Is this an unwise move by King Elessar?

I'd say it's a wise choice, considering all that came before. Good-hearted Men would regret not having a chance to visit the Shire any more, but after all there is Bree!

And consider this: For a man to be in the Shire is to be in a lilliputian situation: everything would be too small for him! The Shire is a site long-settled by people of much smaller stature. I don't see how it could accommodate itself (nor its people) to the size needs of Men. And after what it went through with Saruman and his minions, it ought to be left alone and be just as it always was.

Barley

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

It might have been different had the Shire not suffered at the hands of Saruman and his human henchmen but by the time the war was won, I very much doubt that the hobbits would have been comfortable with men in the Shire however friendly and well-intentioned. For goodness sake, the Shire folk considered their own kind untrustworthy and decidedly questionable if they lived across the river - and vice versa.

King Elessar knew very well that the hobbits - set in their ways as they certainly were - would be much better off if allowed to continue in their xenophobic habits. There was simply no way they could be persuaded to change short of force, something that he would never have done.

 

[Ithrynluin]

I do not consider it a wise choice. Elessar only forbade entrance into the Shire to everyone needlessly.

Kind-hearted people who would wish to visit it would be unable to do so, and there would be no mingling of cultures and other peoples would be unable to acquaint themselves with the Shire and vice versa, and I do not regard isolation the best way to go. Different races should learn to coexist with one another peacefully to the enrichment of both.

In contrast, those with ill intentions would enter it if they wanted to, regardless of Elessar's orders, and could wreak havoc enough before someone intervened.

 

[Gildor]

Mingling and learning to exist with with others is a double-edged sword, on one hand you will learn the ways of the world, but on the other you will eventually lose much of your own culture.

I believe it was wise. The Shire was The Shire and Hobbits were Hobbits because they had kept to themselves for so long and remained largely innocent (or happily ignorant) to all the noisy goings-on outside their borders.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

I do not consider it a wise choice. Elessar only forbade entrance into the Shire to everyone needlessly.

Kind-hearted people who would wish to visit it would be unable to do so, and there would be no mingling of cultures and other peoples would be unable to acquaint themselves with the Shire and vice versa, and I do not regard isolation the best way to go. Different races should learn to coexist with one another peacefully to the enrichment of both.

In contrast, those with ill intentions would enter it if they wanted to, regardless of Elessar's orders, and could wreak havoc enough before someone intervened.

Well, he did not forbid to just 'any'one, but to Men only, did he?
Besides, I don't expect the Hobbits, enterprising as they were, to not 'mingle' with the rest of the world, especially in the new conditions and situation. I would expect them to develop a good trade with the rest of the races, with Men, too.

So, I see it as a wise choice and a way of the King to pay respect to the 'little ones' who made it possible for his aims to be achieved. Just a way of respect!

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

It is all very well and good to talk about "good people" wishing to mingle with hobbits, but the simple fact is that the hobbits did not wish to "mingle". You are not being "friendly" when you force yourself upon someone who does not wish your company.

The hobbits were xenophobes, untrusting and uncomfortable with anyone who wasn't "their own kind". As I pointed out, that particular attitude even included hobbits who lived in other "uncouth" parts of the Shire! It is hardly likely that they would ever have been comfortable with strange "big people" wandering about in the Shire even had they not suffered under Saruman and his thugs.

However, we must always remember that the decree was from the "outside", so to speak. Hobbits could always travel to Bree and "mingle" if they had a mind to - but I think that it was for the best that the King allowed them to maintain their "hidden ways" since that was their desire. After all, as a "people", hobbits had already done more than their share for the good of Middle-earth - albeit through a very few members of their race. If they wished as a reward for that service to be "left alone", why not?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

It is all very well and good to talk about "good people" wishing to mingle with hobbits, but the simple fact is that the hobbits did not wish to "mingle". You are not being "friendly" when you force yourself upon someone who does not wish your company.

The hobbits were xenophobes, untrusting and uncomfortable with anyone who wasn't "their own kind".

Well, that was where I was coming from, M, thinking of good people. And of course they'd gotten enough of men forcing themselves on the Shire during Saruman's short reign there.

Somehow the harsh term "xenophobe" never occurred to me.

In general, I side with a blend of both Ithrynluin's and Lhunithiliel's viewpoints.
(And before emotions begin to run hot, let's remember: it's just a story, after all!)

Barley

 

[Ithrynluin]

Mingling and learning to exist with with others is a double-edged sword, on one hand you will learn the ways of the world, but on the other you will eventually lose much of your own culture.

I believe it was wise. The Shire was The Shire and Hobbits were Hobbits because they had kept to themselves for so long and remained largely innocent (or happily ignorant) to all the noisy goings-on outside their borders.

It is indeed a double edged sword, but I would not go as for as to say that they would lose 'much' of their culture, but 'some'. Yet, they would gain back some too, from the other culture. I consider all of this as growth, both on a personal level, and as a people.

I agree with the 'happily ignorant' comment about the Hobbits, to an extent. But if there were no issuing of the edict, does that mean that suddenly hordes of Men would pour all over the Shire, disrupting their ways and customs? I don't think so.

Well, he did not forbid to just 'any'one, but to Men only, did he?

Then that is so much the worse. Discrimination based on race!
Seriously though, I suppose he narrowed it down to 'Men' because the Dominion of Men was at hand, and other races would fast be 'fading' out.

So, I see it as a wise choice and a way of the King to pay respect to the 'little ones' who made it possible for his aims to be achieved. Just a way of respect!

Yes, Elessar had much to be grateful for, owing to the halflings. He could have made an earnest plight to protect the Shire from all evil and harm -- regardless of whether it came from Man, Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Troll, or even Hobbit -- rather than generically forbidding a whole race from ever entering the Shire.

The hobbits were xenophobes, untrusting and uncomfortable with anyone who wasn't "their own kind".

No. I find that to be a sweeping generalisation, both unfair and untrue. No one people, or race, can be ascribed xenophobia as some sort of inborn character trait. It can be said that xenophobia (though I'd use a much milder word) is an 'inveterate tendency', firmly established by long persistence, not specific to hobbits only, but any people in general.

The town of Bree serves as a fine example of how Halflings and Men can cohabit in perfect symbiosis. Where's the xenophobia? Distrust? Discomfort?

(And before emotions begin to run hot, let's remember: it's just a story, after all!)

And every good story bears much resemblance and applicability to real life.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I think in the end, that Elessar made this edict as both a practical and a humane matter. It protected the hobbits from unwanted intrusion and allowed them to live in peace and pursue their interests as they had always done. What the Rangers had done in secret was now applied openly. Elessar himself kept his own edict, stopping at the Brandywine Bridge (I believe) during his visit.

The Hobbits were anything but xenophobic, an unfortunate term. They were naturally trusting and gregarious among themselves, and with you too, once they had a chance to get to know you. "Rustic wariness" when warranted, yes, xenophobia, no. And as for mingling of cultures, much to be desired, there was Bree. And any Hobbit with that "Tookish desire for adventure" was free to travel anywhere at any time.

Barley

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Actually, xenophobic is not a "harsh" term. It merely means that one has a natural "fear" or "aversion" to strangers. In that, the hobbits were certainly no different from many other folk in Middle-earth. Remember, Frodo tells Gandalf that he always envisioned the "big folk" (men) as "stupid" - kind and stupid like Butterbur or wicked and stupid like Bill Ferny (this was the conversation about Aragorn in Rivendell). The mere fact that he could lump all men (or all of any other group) into a general category (in this case, "stupid") is indicative of a xenophobic attitude.

And remember, Frodo is surely one of the less prosaic hobbits in the Shire! He at least - through Bilbo - has been exposed to peoples and places outside that land. Of course, some hobbits are more xenophobic than others. The Bucklanders - having had experiences in Bree - were more open minded. But remember, even Farmer Maggot (bless him!) thought the folk in Hobbiton considerably less trustworthy than the people in his little area of the Shire!

No, I don't think "xenophobic" is too harsh a term in this instance. Hobbits certainly don't hate anyone - but they are far from comfortable with strangers (even hobbit strangers) and they do fear men which is understandable given the difference in size between the races! Indeed, they tend to be wary (if not frightened) of anything "new" or "unusual".

 

[Ithrynluin]

Actually, xenophobic is not a "harsh" term. It merely means that one has a natural "fear" or "aversion" to strangers.

A phobia is an irrational, illogical and exaggerated fear of something or someone. That is rather extreme, and I don't see that as a common phenomenon neither among hobbits nor among other inhabitants of Middle-earth.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

A phobia is an irrational, illogical and exaggerated fear of something or someone. That is rather extreme, and I don't see that as a common phenomenon neither among hobbits nor among other inhabitants of Middle-earth.

And was it "rational" or "logical" for the Gaffer to say that Bilbo never did a "kinder thing" than when he brought Frodo to Bag End rather than allowing him to live among all those queer folk in Buckland? If the hobbits distrusted their own kind simply because they lived near the river or in Hobbiton (Farmer Maggot), there can be no doubt that their fear of outsiders - and especially men - would have been far greater than warranted by the circumstances extant.

Xenophobes dislike and distrust strangers, people who aren't "one of us". It is not the same type of irrational fear as affects arachnophobes or claustrophobes since it may have some real basis in fact (not all strangers are nice folk).

As well, the extent of any "phobia" is not equal. One may be mildly claustrophobic which means that you are uncomfortable in, say, elevators - or so phobic that you are absolutely unable to enter any small enclosed space. Hobbits were xenophobes, but that doesn't mean that they would run screaming from any stranger. Yet, their mindset was such that King Elessar determined that it was best for all concerned to allow them to live in the isolation that they so obviously desired.

 

[HLGStrider]

Elgee mumbles to herself that arachniphobia is not at all irrational because even if they aren't the poisonous sort arachnids have stickery legs that scratch and itch and beedy eyes that mean no good to any human being.


It is simply a matter of size, I think. A man has double advantage over a hobbit simply due to heighth. Aragorn knew that there would be kings after him who were not as noble. He knew that the Shire's people could be exploited. He took a drastic, possibly too drastic, measure to protect them from possible exploitation.

In this we are not dealing with "equality" in the way we understand it. The Hobbits had a major disadvantage in size. The age of men was dawning. If you believe the introduction to the Hobbit they would eventually drive the Hobbits out of their land and into hiding, even with this protectionism. Hobbits were doomed to obscurity as men came into their own. Aragorn was just doing his best to delay the inevitable.

AND! There is another way to look at this. What Aragorn was forbidding more than Peddlers or Travelers (I believe) was Settlers.

Aragorn seems to note Hobbiton as a part of his kingdom but at the same time a sovereign nation. He is respecting their boarders by telling his men they cannot take the land about Hobbiton.

I imagine not all of the land was owned-inhabbited. There are woods and wide opened spaces most likely claimed by no hobbit. A hobbit, therefore, would have no legal say to stop a family of men moving down the road, and it wouldn't be just one family. It would be several. The land was good and already cultivated. Unlike other portions of Arnor where settlers would be far from shelter or help, there would be little friends to provide food when they were settling in.

All good at first, but men's age is dawning and the other races are dwindling. If the Hobbits become outnumbered, what then?

It is obvious that something of the kind eventually happened. Otherwise Hobbits would not have to be scurrying out of the way when the clumsy big folk walked by.

 

[Arvedui]

Another factor that has not been exploited yet, is that Aragorn may have had a different agenda also.
He knew of course that Eriador was mostly unpopulated, and perhaps he thought that by issuing the edict possible settlers would look to the great open spaces of Eriador, and settle there instead of forcing themselves upon the hobbits.

 

[Ithrynluin]

Mrs. Maggott, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Aragorn knew that there would be kings after him who were not as noble.

Well I'm not sure about him knowing that, but regardless, the 'upcoming' kings could simply do away with the edict if they found it not to their liking.

Aragorn was just doing his best to delay the inevitable.

The Dominion of Men was approaching and it was inevitable. Other races would diminish no matter what.

I do not doubt that his intentions were good. But his actions were quite needless I think.

 

[HLGStrider]

Well, if we agree on intentions, then the best basis for debate is now whether good intentions brought about good or bad results. I would say we can't really know.

Well I'm not sure about him knowing that, but regardless, the 'upcoming' kings could simply do away with the edict if they found it not to their liking.

Of course they could, but they would have to go through the work of doing so, and the edict being in place already would make this harder in several ways.

We will assume that without the edict there would have been some men settlers. However, under Aragorn's wise, benevolent rule they could have been kept under check. Therefore, under Aragorn's rule the edict wasn't all that necessary. Let's say he didn't put it in place, there was a settlement, a few men here, a group there, one family here. Now along comes the "bad king" who wants to exploit the Hobbits. There are already men in the Shire to do his will. They can slowly begin to worm their way into power from within.

On the other hand, a king who wants to exploit while the edict is in place will have to remove the edict and send in men. The Hobbits will have warning. They will be being attacked by a force from without, not within, and a force from within is far more dangerous. The men would still triumph, but the work would be harder and there would most likely be fighting.

I don't see fighting in the "men working from within the Shire" scenario, just a slow takeover.