Was it really impossible to defeat Morgoth?

Tolkien was a spiritual dude; and if we are to understand the authors lore, we must understand the author. My theory is in my private profile (the discussion with Yay). I don’t really wish to bring up the idea here, but if you go to the discussion I’ve had with Yay in that private thingy, that will give you my answer to your question (it is the 18th post from the most recent; the one dated 07-26-2008 09:56 PM). That is my personal theory on Tolkien's "big picture" concerning the evil rebellion of Morgoth.

Illuin said:

Tolkien was a spiritual dude; and if we are to understand the authors lore, we must understand the author. My theory is in my private profile (the discussion with Yay). I don’t really wish to bring up the idea here, but if you go to the discussion I’ve had with Yay in that private thingy, that will give you my answer to your question (it is the 18th post from the most recent; the one dated 07-26-2008 09:56 PM). That is my personal theory on Tolkien's "big picture" concerning the evil rebellion of Morgoth.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I can't see that post. But I will see if he has it somewhere else.

I know that Tolkien was actually one of the earlier translators of the Bible into English (from Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek. Or was it Latin?) Anyway, I think he might have taken some of his ideas from the Bible itself, and if he did, I would really like to know how he presented and translated it into the ME situation. That would clear out many questions concerning Morgoth and the whether or not he was too much for anyone to handle.

We're in deep water here: up against the Problem of Evil itself; the most serious philosophical objection to Monotheistic Religion. Why does a benevolent God permit evil and suffering?

There are a number of answers many of them most unappealing: either God doesn't exist, doesn't care, or is a sadist; that is, there is not God, only Satan, or Melkor, if you wish.

Most religions take another way out and say that God permits free-will and that people can chose to be either Good or Evil, and that thus whatever trouble we get into is largely our own fault.

Although this is more attractive than other than the previous options I have always had problems with it. To what extent can someone born into an evil society be said to have choice, or even be aware that they can chose?

And just as important, while in theory you may be able to chose Good over Evil, how can you chose not to be a victim of Evil?

In some cases there is no choice. How does a malnourished seven year old peasant girl in the Middle Ages chose not to die of dysentery or tuberculosis? How does a Polish Jew chose not die in Hitler's gas-chambers, or an Elvish warrior not to end up on the Hill of Slain?

So it's a hard one and people have been discussing it for centuries. I think I'll leave it for the theologians and philosophers; and the best of British luck to all of them.

Back to Beleriand: it is my feeling that an Elvish victory in the Fifth Battle would have crippled Morgoth. He had put forth most of his remaining power into his armies and it they had been destroyed I doubt he could have replaced them; or at least it would have taken him hundreds of years.

As it was it was a near-run thing despite everything that went wrong. The Elvish plan was a good one, but was very poorly executed. Things could well have gone differently.

More than anything else numbers matter in war. The Elves should have raised their numbers close to the carrying capacity of their lands and made sure they had forces capable of crushing Morgoth's hordes whenever they emerged.

Even if it was not comfortable for them to have lots of children they should have made the effort to ensure their own survival. The Elves were fine soldiers, courageous, well-motived and well-armed. If only their had been more of them they could have held onto their lands and kept Morgoth penned up until eventually the Valar came to remove him.

Oh boy...we have indeed opened a can of worms . The question is; do I have the energy to continue . Not sure if my gray matter is up for this kind of a workout. It's been awhile .

I thought I read Eru or Manwe saying that evil was allowed to exist because it would, once overcome, make things better? If I did it's in the Silmarillion. You guys/gals have read it plenty more than I have and I'm surprised someone hasn't come forward with a quote (which makes me wonder if I thought wrong )

by Prince of Cats
I thought I read Eru or Manwe saying that evil was allowed to exist because it would, once overcome, make things better? If I did it's in the Silmarillion. You guys/gals have read it plenty more than I have and I'm surprised someone hasn't come forward with a quote (which makes me wonder if I thought wrong

Click to expand...

Well; there are quotes like these in The Silmarillion:

'And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'


'But Ilúvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and he said: ''These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.'

Maybe it’s simply the idea that through evil, good and beauty become more appreciated and magnificent.

Illuin said:

Well; there are quotes like these in The Silmarillion:

'And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'


'But Ilúvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and he said: ''These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.'

Maybe it’s simply the idea that through evil, good and beauty become more appreciated and magnificent.

Click to expand...

One does not need to get burned to know that fire is hot. So if this truly was the reason why Eru had allowed evil to exist, he made a huge mistake that cost the lives of many good beings. Melkor would have won my vote and my loyalty.

by Narya
One does not need to get burned to know that fire is hot. So if this truly was the reason why Eru had allowed evil to exist, he made a huge mistake that cost the lives of many good beings.

Click to expand...

Well…the “physical” lives. The true nature lives on after physical death….and they (through experience in the flesh) have learned much.

Illuin said:

Well…the “physical” lives. The true nature lives on after physical death….and they (through experience in the flesh) have learned much.

Click to expand...

No doubt. After all the killing, all the scheming, all the suffering that it brought, one would hope that someone got something out of it all.

*devil's advocate sense tingles* Hm? Now, where did you come up with that? A parallel universe with alternate writings by Tolkien? Sure, Feanor was proud, but I see nothing wrong with that. How did his pride make him a maniac? I am attempting to remember the actions he took that people take offense over. Anything objectionable that occurred during that whole bit where he's rallying troops and hunting poor Mel down had more to do with grief and righteous fury than pride. Anything before that was probably just Feanor making other elves jealous by being the best and deriving no shame from it.

But I am guessing that you attach that scene with the Doom Of Mandos to his pride. Anything that he came up with there was also uttered while in the throes of grief and righteous fury, and he never even caused any trouble with that little promise that some decided to repeat. Other people caused problems, and they were the ones who should be held responsible for any inconveniences. I don't even remember him asking anyone else to make any promises. He didn't even give any of his kids an expectant glare.

Irredeemable? Poor Feanor. But I would agree. He doesn't need redemption, since he was only ever awesome.

Oh, and, ah, yes, it would be possible to defeat poor Mel. Of course. It happened eventually, anyways. But earlier and without Ainuric support? Sure. If only any of the good guys knew how to plan. Were there any decent strategists, or was Mel the only one who could surprise anyone?

But I am guessing that you attach that scene with the Doom Of Mandos to his pride.

Click to expand...

No, the burning of the ships is my issue. I understand the spontaneous temper-tantrum at Alqualonde; but leaving Fingolfin and friends out to dry? The burning at Losgar? No..... profanity is prohibited in this forum; so I will say no more other than; "Would you want a brother; or a friend like that?"

Hm. A brother similar to Feanor? Not a half-brother, since he wasn't a fan of those. I bet that he would be quite useful. But then, as a brother or a friend, his energies would be too dangerous to direct. Mel attempted and would have had at least Middle Earth to himself quite easily if he hadn't. Anyways, no, relatives are no good. They expect special treatment just because you can't help being related. And Feanor has no friends. Feanor is too self-centered for friends. Maybe a craftsman in a field that Feanor hasn't chosen to dominate yet. That would be close.

But towards that other thing, Ack! By what means did you arrive at the conclusion that Feanor was horrible for burning some ships? The train of missed motivations? Feanor knew that those other elves didn't entirely agree with him. He had his most loyal troops with him already. Finarfin and his ilk had already turned back. He figured that Valinor wasn't too horrible of a place to leave the others. He even gave them an extravagant farewell. It was silly to burn the ships, even if he had just invented the s'more. They could have easily been left someplace and used for something else later. But no. The other guys were waiting. He politely informed them, "No, don't worry about us. You can just go back home. I wouldn't force you into any decisions that you weren't entirely sure about."

by YayGollum
“You can just go back home. I wouldn't force you into any decisions that you weren't entirely sure about."

Click to expand...

Well; tact has its merits; and there is a way to say and do things. If he said it like you did above; that would be a different story. His “delivery” as it were, was in bad taste. A few grumblings aside; many, before they were betrayed, still followed him; no?

Sure, but he knew that there were grumblings. He wasn't a large fan of dissent when up against Mel, who really needed taking down. To tie into the topic of the thread, if Feanor had taken any time to train his troops, he most probably would have won. He was the best at anything he set his mind to. Unfortunately, they were up against bad guys who knew a thing or two beyond fighting a few surprised sailors. And he would have done a much better job of keeping everyone rallied.

Anyways, you can understand why Feanor delivered his message that way. He was the greatest orator of all time, and they still didn't trust him unequivocally, for some reason. He wasn't about to waste his time on them again. And why call the guy a traitor? To him, they were the traitors. He was helping them out. They didn't agree with him, so they must not care as much about justice. Valinor is boring but safe. Not that horrible of a fate. They were the crazy ones, deciding to walk over.

For somebody who is supposed to be such a genius Feanor comes across as nothing more than an idiot: in both word and deed. I wouldn't fancy his chances against Morgoth at all, the guy simply wasn't smart enough for an opponent as cunning as Melkor. I'm guessing most of the information we had on his supposed genius came from the Noldolante - the biased views of one of his sons.

The only time I even thought the Elves came close to defeating Morgoth, when I first read the Silmarillion, was with the Nirnaeth Arnoediad. Yet even without the treachery in Maedhros's army, even if the Noldor won the field, how would they have finished him off? Could they have finished him off? Save sticking a Silmaril down his throat and standing back to watch the fun - I can't really see how?

by YayGollum
Anyways, you can understand why Feanor delivered his message that way. He was the greatest orator of all time, and they still didn't trust him unequivocally, for some reason.

Click to expand...

Well, not ALL left behind were grumblers. If there were more boats on the initial trip; I'm sure there were plenty more non-grumblers that were raring to go. Also, I never underestimated any of his talents; but his wisdom was skewed horribly when his father died (understandable). However, if he was prudent; and at least waited for his wisdom to return after the initial anger and shock wore off (at least a little); he may have finally acquired the realization that Mel was the cause of all his woes; including his altercation with his half-bro and subsequent exile; and MOST importantly his own current way of thinking. Then, coming to his senses; could have used those supreme oratory skills to rally the Valar from their stupor; and take care of business; which in all likelihood would have eventually happened. However; we would have then been left with a very boring book .

by Turgon
Could they have finished him off? Save sticking a Silmaril down his throat and standing back to watch the fun

Click to expand...

Professor Tolkien was a very conservative fellow and had no time for rebels or rebellion. In every case rebellion is seen as almost sinful and invariably leads to disaster--Morgoth, Feanor, Ar-Pharazon, Castimir the Usurper.

As a devout Catholic the Protestant Reformation, or "Rebellion" as Catholics call it, would have been one of the most grievous events in history. It touched him personally: his wife came over to Catholicism from the Anglican Church and was never really comfortable with it. It led to tension throughout their marriage.

As an Middle English scholar it was the usurper William of Normandy, surnamed the Conqueror, who brought and end to his idyllic Anglo-Saxon era and the organic development of the English language.

He lived moreover through the era of the world wars where various rebellions of the Left and the Right led parts of the world closer to Hell on Earth as we ever want to get.

Feanor in his political aspect is nothing but an irresponsible demagogue. His vainglorious life and death, his violence and treachery even to his own kin and kind, are expressions of the Professor's distaste for what he represents.

Whether you agree with him depends on your own political values.

Oops, I just opened another can of worms.

For somebody who is supposed to be such a genius Feanor comes across as nothing more than an idiot: in both word and deed. I wouldn't fancy his chances against Morgoth at all, the guy simply wasn't smart enough for an opponent as cunning as Melkor. I'm guessing most of the information we had on his supposed genius came from the Noldolante - the biased views of one of his sons.

Click to expand...

I am sorry but this is ridiculous-you are confusing "genius" with moralist-or you are incorrectly defining genius as a well-rounded individual-in either case the definition is untrue. Yes, Feanor’s solipistic egoism and selfishness are grating, but that is the thing with genius-it grates, as Nabokov said of Gogol, "Gogol was a strange creature, but then genius is always strange, it is only your healthy second rater who seems to the reader to be a wise old friend, nicely developing the reader's notion of life". How anybody can question Feanor's genius is beyond me. He created the Silmarils, he instigated many cultural, linguistic and technological developments within Elven society, he led the Noldor to rebellion, and he was a great orator, linguistic and completely and utterly made. Yes, he was a prat, but he was certainly a genius as well. If the definition of genius is "wise" (whatever tendentious connotations are associated with the word 'wise') or 'selfless', or other personality aspects, then you have a strange definition of genius. By your logic, Sam is more of a genius than Feanor.

Well my opinion is what it is, I still think he was a maniac. Galadriel didn't like him, and she had that unparalleled judge of character sense going. But like I said before; without him we would have been left with a very dull book.