Musings on Thorin
Dec. 5th, 2018 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
grundyscribblingAnyone who follows me on Tumblr saw my back and forth with Mainecoon76 about Thorin and the siege of Erebor immediately prior to the battle of Five Armies.
I feel the need to clarify that I'm not coming at this from an anti-dwarf or anti-Thorin perspective so much as a 'was he effective?' perspective. And unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with Gandalf's assessment of Thorin - he was not cutting a very splendid figure as King under the Mountain.
As King, Thorin should be thinking about how to achieve the best possible outcome for his people. But Thorin seems to somehow* have gotten it in his mind that keeping the entire treasure is the best outcome. It's not. The best outcome is a stable and prosperous restored Kingdom under the Mountain. (Thorin should be able to recognize this - he has, after all done the difficult work of restoring his people to some degree of prosperity and pride prior to setting out on his quest to the Mountain.) He can keep all the gold, but it's not going to matter if he has to constantly be keeping an eye on the enemies on his very doorstep or nominally ruling people he can't feed.
Roäc - who is hardly anti-dwarf and as best as I can determine acts in the interests of the dwarves of the mountain initially, and thereafter in accordance with Thorin's wishes - advised Thorin immediately after giving him news of Smaug's death and the gathering of those who looked toward the treasure in the mountain to deal with Bard, bypassing the Master of Laketown. This is sound advice. It might cost him more treasure than Thorin would like in the short term, but it would buy him a lasting friendship that will be vital for the Mountain in the long term.
The Lake-men are in desperate straits after the destruction of Laketown. They've got most of their population, their livestock, pastures, and fields, but that's about it. They don't have adequate shelter or food, and people who survived the initial disaster are dying of hunger, cold, and sickness.
Thorin obviously can't provide much for them in the way of food or manpower, not when he only has 12 dwarves plus Bilbo and they're on short rations themselves. What's more, he's right to prioritize fortifying the Mountain for its defense, even if his immediate reasoning as to why he's doing so is wrong. But buying the goodwill of the Lake-men with a pledge of a portion from the treasure at this point, before Bard and Thranduil even arrived, would be smart dealing on his part.
First of all, not all the treasure was the dwarves' in the first place - Smaug added his plunder from Dale and its environs to what was in the Mountain. Thorin's argument that it belongs to the dwarves because Smaug deprived them of life and home doesn't hold water when Smaug did much the same to Dale long before the destruction of Laketown, and trying to make that argument publicly makes Thorin look bad. (Appearances do matter in public diplomacy.) Moreover, the Lake-men helped Thorin's company when they arrived in Laketown in similarly desperate straits - wet, cold, hungry, with little but what they had on their backs. Now would be a good time to pay back - especially when the dwarves stand to gain much from it.
The good will of the Laketown survivors (and potentially the people of a restored Dale) is important for more than just the moment. Recall what Thorin said at the outset of The Hobbit about the glory days of the Mountain: Fathers would beg us to take their sons as apprentices, and pay us handsomely, especially in food supplies, which we never bothered to grow or find for ourselves. [Emphasis mine.] The Mountain is a kingdom that is not self-sufficient in terms of food! It depended on trade to feed itself - and even if the dwarves had the area and security required to produce enough food for a repopulated mountain, it's likely they don't have the necessary knowledge of farming or livestock husbandry. That institutional knowledge didn't exist before Smaug destroyed most of their population; the survivors have since been working as miners and smiths, not farmhands. Thorin is missing a golden opportunity to lay a solid foundation for a good relationship with the very people who should be the Mountain's natural trade partners. (The Lake-men also urgently need things the dwarves are well placed to produce if the two people aren't at odds - metalwork in the form of tools, building goods such as nails and hinges, and domestic goods like pots and pans, in decent quantities. Given the Lake-men have little else to trade at the moment, the dwarves stood to get back much of any of the treasure they gave the Lake-men fairly quickly!)
What's more, any argument that Bard and Thranduil were somehow wrong to approach the mountain with their armies ignores that Thorin at no point informed them that he and his people were alive. Without that knowledge, they're not intentionally marching into another leader's territory - which could be considered an act of war - they're marching into unheld territory. (Territory Dain of the Iron Hills could potentially claim, but in his absence, there's no one with a clear right to it and more importantly no one defending it.) It's absolutely sensible of them to approach with caution - just because they've moved fairly quickly doesn't mean someone worse wasn't quicker. That Thorin treats their conduct as unwarranted and hostile ignores the reality of the situation - in the power vacuum created by Smaug's death someone is going to move to claim the Mountain, and given the current geopolitical situation there's a range of unpleasant possibilities for who 'someone' might be, ranging all the way from goblins to Sauron. I will grant that Thorin couldn't have known about the potential Sauron aspect, but he's sharp enough that he should recognize that a prize like the mountain won't sit around empty for long, and that there are worse groups likely to take interest than the Lake-men and elves of Mirkwood.
Thorin could perhaps justify his 'greeting' in the initial contact with Thranduil and Bard's subordinates, but again, what does it gain him? Was it effective? By treating them as potential enemies rather than potential allies, all he achieved was creating needless ill-will. Again, recall that while the Lake-men can't currently feed themselves, Thorin and company are eating cram! Civil words and assuring his 'friends' who were coming to check on him that he and his folk are well sets a much better tone for negotiation than "who are you that come as if in war?" This is not about being nice, it's about getting what Thorin wants, and what his people need - and you get more from folk who believe you consider them friends than people who recognize you are treating them as enemies.
Demanding that Thranduil withdraw is provocative no matter what perspective one adopts - it wouldn't matter if Thranduil had personally slaughtered Thorin's favorite puppy, when allies come to the table together, you're asking for trouble by openly and publicly trying to separate them. It's foolish and bad diplomacy, and again, not effective. Sure, it's possible that it might work, but it's a long shot. It's far more likely that Bard feels he can't ask Thranduil to leave under the circumstances for fear of giving offense, not to mention concern that doing would demonstrates that he will cave to such bad behavior and give up his ally - in short, proving himself easy pickings. As for Thranduil, if he voluntarily retreats, he leaves a man new to leadership dealing with an opponent who is to all appearances not acting in good faith. (Thranduil became king when his father died in battle. He may know a thing or two about the problems of new leaders who weren't expecting to be in charge in a tense situation.) In short, there are solid reasons for both to wish to continue negotiations as a team rather than Bard going it alone. And even if Thorin feels this is vital, his approach is highly unlikely to succeed. Again, all he achieves is creating ill-will.
Moving from 'not good' to worse, Thorin was the first of the three leaders to threaten violence ("Begone now ere our arrows fly!") in negotiations, and the first to actually use it - and against messengers, at that. Assaulting messengers in a situation like this is an act of war. This is not only egregious on its face, it's absolutely disastrous as far as achieving a good outcome for the dwarves of the Mountain. There is no reasonable expectation from any perspective that Bard and Thranduil can or will let such an action slide; a non-violent siege is actually a very measured response. But beyond that, even once he discovers Thranduil and Bard had been given the Arkenstone, Thorin was still set on trying to keep all the treasure and regain the Arkenstone.
Again, what do Thorin's actions do to achieve a good outcome for his people? What was his path to his idea of winning? Being besieged when they're already short of food is not a good situation. Depending on Dain to be able to evade or break the siege to get into the Mountain is not a solid plan. We are told Dain was bringing "at least five hundred" dwarves. Even if you discount Thranduil's assessment that the men and elves have superior numbers (and I don't), given Balin's reaction to the camp of the men and elves - 'very great' - and that this is a camp of a picked body that we are told left behind women, children, the sick, and the old, meaning it's only fighting fit men/elves, it's unlikely that Dain outnumbers the besieging forces. At best maybe he achieves parity. But defenders generally have an advantage unless they're in a bad position (no indication Bard and Thranduil were), and Dain's forces are just off a long march at a quick pace - so no advantage to Dain. Thranduil is old enough to have seen the War of the Last Alliance. This is not his first battle. Counting on him to make stupid or rookie mistakes is not a solid strategy. Moreover, however good Dain may be, there's no indication he's fought anything but goblins before. He certainly hasn't fought elves - there hasn't been a war between dwarves and elves in his lifetime. While one might accuse Thranduil of overconfidence, given his experience, it's likely his assessment that their strength of numbers will give him and Bard the upper hand if it comes to a fight is accurate. All of which is to say that Thorin's 'strategy', such as it is, involves a lot of wishful thinking and best-case scenario - generally not the mark of a good leader.
Thorin simply wasn't making the moves he needed to make for the good of his people and his kingdom, regardless of anything Bard and Thranduil were or weren't doing. And it nearly led to disaster for the dwarves. I'm not contrasting Thorin with Bard and Thranduil. I'm contrasting him with his cousin Dain - the dwarf who ended up King under the Mountain after Thorin's behavior cost not only his own life, but the lives of his sister-sons, ending the line of Thror. Dain actually did the things Thorin should have but didn't: honored his word, and forged a close relationship with Bard and the Lake-men/men of Dale that benefited both peoples and carried all the way through the War of the Ring. And it's with that in mind that I'm finding Thorin's behavior from the time of regaining the Mountain until the Battle of Five Armies rather lacking.
*The book offers the effects of 'gold upon which a dragon has long brooded' as a reason, and given that previously Thorin was shown to be a good leader who took care of his people - Bilbo included, Peter Jackson! - I'm inclined to go with it.
I feel the need to clarify that I'm not coming at this from an anti-dwarf or anti-Thorin perspective so much as a 'was he effective?' perspective. And unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with Gandalf's assessment of Thorin - he was not cutting a very splendid figure as King under the Mountain.
As King, Thorin should be thinking about how to achieve the best possible outcome for his people. But Thorin seems to somehow* have gotten it in his mind that keeping the entire treasure is the best outcome. It's not. The best outcome is a stable and prosperous restored Kingdom under the Mountain. (Thorin should be able to recognize this - he has, after all done the difficult work of restoring his people to some degree of prosperity and pride prior to setting out on his quest to the Mountain.) He can keep all the gold, but it's not going to matter if he has to constantly be keeping an eye on the enemies on his very doorstep or nominally ruling people he can't feed.
Roäc - who is hardly anti-dwarf and as best as I can determine acts in the interests of the dwarves of the mountain initially, and thereafter in accordance with Thorin's wishes - advised Thorin immediately after giving him news of Smaug's death and the gathering of those who looked toward the treasure in the mountain to deal with Bard, bypassing the Master of Laketown. This is sound advice. It might cost him more treasure than Thorin would like in the short term, but it would buy him a lasting friendship that will be vital for the Mountain in the long term.
The Lake-men are in desperate straits after the destruction of Laketown. They've got most of their population, their livestock, pastures, and fields, but that's about it. They don't have adequate shelter or food, and people who survived the initial disaster are dying of hunger, cold, and sickness.
Thorin obviously can't provide much for them in the way of food or manpower, not when he only has 12 dwarves plus Bilbo and they're on short rations themselves. What's more, he's right to prioritize fortifying the Mountain for its defense, even if his immediate reasoning as to why he's doing so is wrong. But buying the goodwill of the Lake-men with a pledge of a portion from the treasure at this point, before Bard and Thranduil even arrived, would be smart dealing on his part.
First of all, not all the treasure was the dwarves' in the first place - Smaug added his plunder from Dale and its environs to what was in the Mountain. Thorin's argument that it belongs to the dwarves because Smaug deprived them of life and home doesn't hold water when Smaug did much the same to Dale long before the destruction of Laketown, and trying to make that argument publicly makes Thorin look bad. (Appearances do matter in public diplomacy.) Moreover, the Lake-men helped Thorin's company when they arrived in Laketown in similarly desperate straits - wet, cold, hungry, with little but what they had on their backs. Now would be a good time to pay back - especially when the dwarves stand to gain much from it.
The good will of the Laketown survivors (and potentially the people of a restored Dale) is important for more than just the moment. Recall what Thorin said at the outset of The Hobbit about the glory days of the Mountain: Fathers would beg us to take their sons as apprentices, and pay us handsomely, especially in food supplies, which we never bothered to grow or find for ourselves. [Emphasis mine.] The Mountain is a kingdom that is not self-sufficient in terms of food! It depended on trade to feed itself - and even if the dwarves had the area and security required to produce enough food for a repopulated mountain, it's likely they don't have the necessary knowledge of farming or livestock husbandry. That institutional knowledge didn't exist before Smaug destroyed most of their population; the survivors have since been working as miners and smiths, not farmhands. Thorin is missing a golden opportunity to lay a solid foundation for a good relationship with the very people who should be the Mountain's natural trade partners. (The Lake-men also urgently need things the dwarves are well placed to produce if the two people aren't at odds - metalwork in the form of tools, building goods such as nails and hinges, and domestic goods like pots and pans, in decent quantities. Given the Lake-men have little else to trade at the moment, the dwarves stood to get back much of any of the treasure they gave the Lake-men fairly quickly!)
What's more, any argument that Bard and Thranduil were somehow wrong to approach the mountain with their armies ignores that Thorin at no point informed them that he and his people were alive. Without that knowledge, they're not intentionally marching into another leader's territory - which could be considered an act of war - they're marching into unheld territory. (Territory Dain of the Iron Hills could potentially claim, but in his absence, there's no one with a clear right to it and more importantly no one defending it.) It's absolutely sensible of them to approach with caution - just because they've moved fairly quickly doesn't mean someone worse wasn't quicker. That Thorin treats their conduct as unwarranted and hostile ignores the reality of the situation - in the power vacuum created by Smaug's death someone is going to move to claim the Mountain, and given the current geopolitical situation there's a range of unpleasant possibilities for who 'someone' might be, ranging all the way from goblins to Sauron. I will grant that Thorin couldn't have known about the potential Sauron aspect, but he's sharp enough that he should recognize that a prize like the mountain won't sit around empty for long, and that there are worse groups likely to take interest than the Lake-men and elves of Mirkwood.
Thorin could perhaps justify his 'greeting' in the initial contact with Thranduil and Bard's subordinates, but again, what does it gain him? Was it effective? By treating them as potential enemies rather than potential allies, all he achieved was creating needless ill-will. Again, recall that while the Lake-men can't currently feed themselves, Thorin and company are eating cram! Civil words and assuring his 'friends' who were coming to check on him that he and his folk are well sets a much better tone for negotiation than "who are you that come as if in war?" This is not about being nice, it's about getting what Thorin wants, and what his people need - and you get more from folk who believe you consider them friends than people who recognize you are treating them as enemies.
Demanding that Thranduil withdraw is provocative no matter what perspective one adopts - it wouldn't matter if Thranduil had personally slaughtered Thorin's favorite puppy, when allies come to the table together, you're asking for trouble by openly and publicly trying to separate them. It's foolish and bad diplomacy, and again, not effective. Sure, it's possible that it might work, but it's a long shot. It's far more likely that Bard feels he can't ask Thranduil to leave under the circumstances for fear of giving offense, not to mention concern that doing would demonstrates that he will cave to such bad behavior and give up his ally - in short, proving himself easy pickings. As for Thranduil, if he voluntarily retreats, he leaves a man new to leadership dealing with an opponent who is to all appearances not acting in good faith. (Thranduil became king when his father died in battle. He may know a thing or two about the problems of new leaders who weren't expecting to be in charge in a tense situation.) In short, there are solid reasons for both to wish to continue negotiations as a team rather than Bard going it alone. And even if Thorin feels this is vital, his approach is highly unlikely to succeed. Again, all he achieves is creating ill-will.
Moving from 'not good' to worse, Thorin was the first of the three leaders to threaten violence ("Begone now ere our arrows fly!") in negotiations, and the first to actually use it - and against messengers, at that. Assaulting messengers in a situation like this is an act of war. This is not only egregious on its face, it's absolutely disastrous as far as achieving a good outcome for the dwarves of the Mountain. There is no reasonable expectation from any perspective that Bard and Thranduil can or will let such an action slide; a non-violent siege is actually a very measured response. But beyond that, even once he discovers Thranduil and Bard had been given the Arkenstone, Thorin was still set on trying to keep all the treasure and regain the Arkenstone.
Again, what do Thorin's actions do to achieve a good outcome for his people? What was his path to his idea of winning? Being besieged when they're already short of food is not a good situation. Depending on Dain to be able to evade or break the siege to get into the Mountain is not a solid plan. We are told Dain was bringing "at least five hundred" dwarves. Even if you discount Thranduil's assessment that the men and elves have superior numbers (and I don't), given Balin's reaction to the camp of the men and elves - 'very great' - and that this is a camp of a picked body that we are told left behind women, children, the sick, and the old, meaning it's only fighting fit men/elves, it's unlikely that Dain outnumbers the besieging forces. At best maybe he achieves parity. But defenders generally have an advantage unless they're in a bad position (no indication Bard and Thranduil were), and Dain's forces are just off a long march at a quick pace - so no advantage to Dain. Thranduil is old enough to have seen the War of the Last Alliance. This is not his first battle. Counting on him to make stupid or rookie mistakes is not a solid strategy. Moreover, however good Dain may be, there's no indication he's fought anything but goblins before. He certainly hasn't fought elves - there hasn't been a war between dwarves and elves in his lifetime. While one might accuse Thranduil of overconfidence, given his experience, it's likely his assessment that their strength of numbers will give him and Bard the upper hand if it comes to a fight is accurate. All of which is to say that Thorin's 'strategy', such as it is, involves a lot of wishful thinking and best-case scenario - generally not the mark of a good leader.
Thorin simply wasn't making the moves he needed to make for the good of his people and his kingdom, regardless of anything Bard and Thranduil were or weren't doing. And it nearly led to disaster for the dwarves. I'm not contrasting Thorin with Bard and Thranduil. I'm contrasting him with his cousin Dain - the dwarf who ended up King under the Mountain after Thorin's behavior cost not only his own life, but the lives of his sister-sons, ending the line of Thror. Dain actually did the things Thorin should have but didn't: honored his word, and forged a close relationship with Bard and the Lake-men/men of Dale that benefited both peoples and carried all the way through the War of the Ring. And it's with that in mind that I'm finding Thorin's behavior from the time of regaining the Mountain until the Battle of Five Armies rather lacking.
*The book offers the effects of 'gold upon which a dragon has long brooded' as a reason, and given that previously Thorin was shown to be a good leader who took care of his people - Bilbo included, Peter Jackson! - I'm inclined to go with it.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 02:42 am (UTC)Anyway, your argument seems sound to me.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 02:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 03:27 pm (UTC)I think I gave up and accepted that Frodo existed around Moria :-D
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 03:56 pm (UTC)ETA: Also, I like the movies better now that they're on DVD and I can just forward through the scenes that bugged me the most. Thorin is angsting again? Forward. That scene in the goblin halls or in the barrels that seems like it exists just to sell the inevitable video game tie-in? Forward. Legolas defying all laws of physics? That I'll watch because I'm still trying to figure out how elves decide when gravity applies and when it doesn't.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 07:41 am (UTC)But unlike in the films, Thorin doesn't seem to have got to know Bard before, while he seems to have assessed the Master of Laketown pretty well.
And I don't think he trusts the Men and the Elves to leave the Dwarves either part or the whole of the treasure, once he gives in. He knows the weakness of his position.
(Or rather, he knows the weakness of his position, before he loses perspective, as you point out.)
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 03:25 pm (UTC)I thought he was grumpy because Thorin was rather bossy when he arrived, and that's why Thorin didn't send a message.
But maybe Bard is just naturally grim and they never met before.
Huh.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 03:30 pm (UTC)... and they would still all have ended up gutting one another and leaving a disastrous wasteland behind, if it hadn't been that the goblins decided to join the party.
I think that's brilliant.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 03:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 07:35 pm (UTC)But I think that assumes that Thranduil's objective was only treasure and peace, and not securing the Mountain.
Like you, I assume Thranduil to be a competent war-leader, and also that he was concerned that Erebor would attract enemies.
What I'm not convinced of though is that Thorin could have offered anything to Bard that would definitely have resulted in the Elves confining themselves to humanitarian aid only.
If Erebor was left there guarded by 13 dwarves and a hobbit, it continues to be a goblin-magnet and an obvious threat to Mirkwood. Even if Dain joins Thorin with 500 dwarves (and Thranduil didn't know he was coming, I think?) that's not a vast army that will definitely be able to hold the Mountain against the forces that will probably assail it now it's dragon-free.
The question is, I suppose, would Thranduil risk his kingdom to keep his word to a dwarf? Thorin, presumably, thought not, and I'm not sure I don't agree with him, even without the hoard of Smaug whispering in my ear.
I've long wondered about the dwarf-elf wars mentioned in the Hobbit. We know about Doriath and Sarn Athrad, of course. But on its own, that's one battle, thousands of years earlier, and I wonder if there had been subsequent confrontations.
Gandalf says at the Council of Elrond something like; if all the arguments between Dwarves and Elves needed to be resolved, they might as well abandon the Council, and that does make it seem like more than two battles and a misunderstanding over forest pathway rights of way.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 08:22 pm (UTC)Once Dain and his dwarves are inside the mountain along with the supplies they were carrying, the Mountain becomes that much more defensible, and can make ready for the next round of reinforcements. Dain's 500 were experienced warriors he was able to bring quickly for the express purpose of securing the mountain, not the total expected long term. That's part of the reason Bard and Thranduil were determined not to let him pass - if Dain and his people get inside, besieging or attacking the Mountain gets more difficult, even with superior numbers. The dwarves could and would open and fortify other gates and then bring in further reinforcements as the news spread. (Dain was the closest, being immediately to the east in the Iron Hills, with no mountain ranges or rivers between them and the Mountain. Thorin still has his people back in the Blue Mountains, who he presumably intended would join him once he had reclaimed their former home.)
I agree that Thranduil wanted the Mountain secure, but there's nothing in the text indicating he wanted to establish himself there. So I believe Thranduil would be unlikely to risk his own people to secure it if someone clearly not on the side of goblins or Sauron was already holding the Mountain, willing and even eager to bleed for it. The Mountain is nothing to Thranduil and his people but a strategic position, whereas the dwarves actually care about the idea of the Kingdom under the Mountain, which means they'll fight much harder for it.
If the risk you're referring to is 'risking his people in a fight against goblins when they show up', I don't see where Thranduil has much choice. It's nothing to do with keeping his word - once the goblins are on the scene in such force, it's imperative to defeat them, regardless of how much elves and dwarves may not like each other. The goblins are their mutual - and much more serious - enemy. Letting goblins get entrenched anywhere in the region is not in anyone's interest - elf, man, or dwarf.
I wondered if there might have been clashes between dwarves and elves toward the end of the Second Age or in the early to mid Third Age, but I can't find anything indicating that was the case. Everything I can find about dwarves' wars in the Third Age is them fighting dragons or orcs. The dwarves were on good terms with Eregion in the Second Age, fought against Sauron, and then retreated into Moria and took no further part. So maybe this is just one of those 'both sides have long memories and hold grudges like champs' deals?
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 09:01 pm (UTC)I suppose the key thing in this scenario is: just how much does Thranduil dislike and distrust Dwarves? If it's only a distant first-age sort of dislike, which should really be focussed on Nogrod anyway, then I agree it would be reasonable for him to leave the Mountain to Thorin & Dain. (I'm not sure about the idea of bringing people from the Blue Mountains. I assume they did in the end, but that was because the Misty Mountains had helpfully sent all their goblins to be slaughtered in a pitched battle. I wonder if they had the force to get through the passes and through Mirkwood if that hadn't happened)
But if Thranduil's pride was offended by the escape from his cells, if he has some more direct reason to distrust Dwarves; perhaps even believing they might ally with Sauron... things might be different. He might have reason to want to occupy the Mountain before Dain arrived. I think that could go either way, since we don't really know what Thranduil's backstory is in detail, or what the relations of the House of Durin are with the Sindar and the silvan elves.
Amdir of Lorien seems to have got on OK with Moria, but then, Amdir got on well with Galadriel too. If Thranduil and Oropher were among the Doriath elves who left Lindon to get away from the Noldor, it might make sense for them to be less warm to the allies of the Noldor in Moria too. But I don't think there's any info on that. ALAS.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 09:43 pm (UTC)I suspect bringing people from the Blue Mountains was doable - it's said earlier there's nothing a dwarf will stop at to regain his own, so I can't see 'needing to secure a few passes over the Misty Mountains or take the long way around through the Gap of Rohan' stopping them once they know the Kingdom under the Mountain is back in business.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-07 08:42 pm (UTC)But we do get told that there were some Dwarves on the side of Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance:
"All living things were divided in that day, and some of every kind, even of beasts and birds, were found in either host, save the Elves only. They alone were undivided and followed Gil-galad. Of the Dwarves few fought upon either side; but the kindred of Durin of Moria fought against Sauron." (Silmarillion: Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age). I think there are also a few other bits here and there.
So there is a possible scenario of a Thranduil who had faced Dwarves serving Sauron in battle there that is supported by canon, I think. One could make something of that.
There's the bit where Gimli says that Thranduil's halls were built partly with Dwarvish help, but it is possible that was before Dagorlad, I suppose.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-08 12:44 am (UTC)Huh. I missed that there were a few dwarves on Sauron's side. But a few dwarves in the middle of all that hardly counts as a dwarf-elf war I would think. I mean, you say 'dwarf-elf war' and I expect a throwdown that's more or less between them, not a sprinkling of dwarves in Sauron's forces...
But even assuming that Thranduil's fought dwarves serving Sauron, Thorin and company are descendants of Durin, and so were a) allies in that fight and b) not part of the dustup in Menegroth back in the First Age either. The only complaint I can see that anyone could level against the Longbeards is waking up Durin's Bane, and I don't recall that causing issues for the elves, only for the dwarves of Moria themselves.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-08 01:12 am (UTC)Presumably Thranduil would have no idea that Sauron was stomping up and down cursing the stiff necks of Dwarves (a delightful image, which presumably we have courtesy of Galadriel poking through his unconscious thoughts?), and might reasonably assume that Ring-ownership was intrinsically suspect. After all, they are very Noldor objects.
I completely agree that Thranduil has no reasonable grudge against the Longbeards, who seem to have been thoroughly respectable and upstanding as a family, but then, the fact that he arrested them does suggest he could be somewhat unreasonable.
I would love to know if at any point the Dwarves mentioned they had come from Rivendell and had help from Elrond. If they had, that would really shed a fascinating light on relations between Thranduil and Elrond.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-08 01:25 am (UTC)I don't think the dwarves mentioned much of anything to Thranduil - Thorin told him they didn't attack, they were starving, and wouldn't answer the question "what were you doing in the forest in the first place" with so much as "trying to get to the other side", and it says Thranduil got 'little more news out of [the other dwarves] than out of Thorin' so I doubt they had any chats about Elrond. They were pretty much refusing to tell him anything.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 08:19 pm (UTC)Except that I don't really disagree. I don't think Thorin's approach was *wise*, or in the best interests of his people. This is particularly true since he was in the weakest position of all the involved parties. But that doesn't mean that he was entirely *wrong*, or the only one who was wrong. As I see it, this (I'm repeating myself) clusterfuck of a political situation came about by three leaders being politically unwise, with the result that good people almost made war on each other.
And what I do object to is that it is usually Thorin who gets all the blame, while the others get a free pass. I think that is very unfair.
You've analyzed in detail what Thorin could have done better and I mostly agree - even though I think we must consider that dwarves are naturally distrustful. Barricading themselves when they justifiably assume that Men let by the Master of Laketown are about to storm the Mountain to plunder it - how are the dwarves supposed to stop them? - is very much in character for them. I also don't think they counted the Laketowners their friends: helpful, yes, but they'd mainly dealt with the Master and it was pretty clear that he was a selfish, unsavoury character.
Anyway, yes, he wasn't wise or kind. But you said on tumblr that the siege happened because he was unreasonable: I'm saying it happened because all of them were unreasonable. And the siege wasn't "peaceful", because a siege is still a military action meant to force enemies into submission.
If we analyze Bard's and Thranduil's behaviour according to the same standards - meaning what would have been in the best interest of their people (because let's not forget there would have been a war with the dwarves if the orcs hadn't come, which wasn't in the interests of men or elves - which is why I find Thranduil's famous "long will I tarry..." the height of hypocrysy) - I, personally, find that lacking too.
What could they have done differently? Well, for one, you say they didn't know they were threspassing another ruler's territory with the obvious intent to plunder his property after his death - which is how it looked like to Thorin (yep, some of it was Laketown's by right, but Bard all but admits he didn't intend to consult with Dain about it). But the moment they noticed, they could have acknowledged it. Bard could have come immediately, and not waited a night. He could have introduced himself politely and acknowledged Thorin's points while arguing his position, and could have been less confrontative in general. He could have avoided insulting another ruler before even giving his own name.
Thranduil, while I can see why he was there in the first place, might have admitted that Thorin would see his presence as somewhat problematic, and might have made some gesture of reconciliation. He might have apologized for detaining the company indefinitely when they were starving in his forest and trying to ask for food. Or he could have returned their gear, including the very valuable elven sword which was Thorin's by right.
And if you say now that he didn't because of their history - well, the dwarves share that history. They just look at it from a different angle.
Should have, might have, could have. If they had, the story would be much less interesting. (And darker besides, because then the orcs would have won.) But my point is that mistakes were made on all sides, not just on Thorin's.
And finally, I don't think the comparison to Dain is fair. Dain's position was completely different. He had just fought with those people side by side against an orc army, and was perfectly willing to attack them earlier. Can you be sure he wouldn't have made the same mistakes, of Thorin wouldn't have done as well as he did after the battle, had he gotten the chance?
(Leaving aside the fact that it wasn't Thorin's behaviour that killed him and his sister-sons; it was the orc attack. They would have fought in this war either way.)
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 09:35 pm (UTC)Sorry, but I still think Bard and Thranduil were acting reasonably given the facts they had in hand.
How does Bard know who to consult with if Thorin is dead? Unlike Thranduil who is both immortal and has been kinging for the entirety of the Third Age, Bard just got acclaimed king a few days ago in the wake of a major disaster. Up until then, he was a captain of the guard in Laketown. The family tree of the line of Durin (much less where to find them now) isn't anything I'd reasonably expect him to know off the top of his head, or have made it a priority to look up under the circumstances. He's learning on the job. And unlike Thorin, who's unwilling to acknowledge anyone else might have a point, he immediately conceded that it was a fair question on being asked what they would have done had they found the dwarves all dead, with no hesitation or beating around the bush. But the question was moot given the facts on the ground. He was there to discuss actualities not hypotheticals.
Actuality: Thorin's alive and well and talking to him, though more as an enemy than as a friend. Actuality: Some of that gold rightfully belongs to the heirs of Dale. Actuality: Bard's people urgently need the region stable - they're in no condition to cope with external threats at the moment. Actuality: the Lake-men are going to be lucky to make it through the winter without further losses, and their continued survival depends heavily on Thranduil's good will. Actuality: he can't afford to offend Thranduil. Actuality: Thorin's not talking like someone who's going to concede anything. If Bard has to pick between them, Thranduil is unquestionably the surer choice.
What's more, Bard was not insulting to Thorin until Thorin had been insulting first. Tit for tat is how these diplomatic games are played. Thorin started with the 'who are you that come armed for war' - in fact, by the time he and Bard are talking, he's said it twice - so he can hardly complain about 'fencing yourself like a robber in your hold'. Could Bard have held back? Maybe. Is it reasonable to expect he won't respond to needling from Thorin in kind? Not so much.
As for your argument that Thranduil somehow acted unreasonably, how was it unreasonable for him to detain people who were trespassing in his realm without his leave and refused to give a straight answer to why they were there? Thorin has no grounds to get outraged about Thranduil's presence in his territory after his behavior in Thranduil's. He was asked outright why he and his people were in the forest and not only refused to answer, he got snarky about the spiders to boot. Furthermore, that very valuable elven sword wasn't Thorin's by any right except 'finders keepers', at least not that he bothered to tell Thranduil. If he wanted to lay claim to it, he'd have done better to actually answer questions when asked and invoke Elrond not disputing his possession, given the sword is from Elrond's great-grandfather's kingdom.
You can't demand that Bard and Thranduil bend over backwards to be polite and deferential when Thorin's acting like a snot, treating them like enemies and making demands from a position of weakness that look to anyone even the least bit suspicious like he's just playing for time. That's just not how diplomacy goes, at least not diplomacy that anyone expects to be effective.
Dain might or might not have made the same mistakes. We don't know. He certainly doesn't seem to be as susceptible to the effects of dragon gold, and it's clear from the Master's behavior that those effects do continue after the Battle of Five Armies. Unfortunately, if we're looking for a dwarf comparison, Dain is all we've really got - he's King all the way through the Ring War.
(Thorin's behavior absofreakinglutely got him and his sister-sons killed. If a commander makes a boneheaded move in battle, that's not on his enemy, that's on him. Thorin didn't coordinate battle strategy with anyone else, just came leaping out and led to a breakdown in discipline that could have easily lost the allied armies the battle regardless of how well they were doing prior to his intervention. His charge may have been momentarily effective, but he overextended, lost any momentum he had, and was overwhelmed. Sorry, but that's on Thorin. Since Kili and Fili defended him with shield and body, he took them down with him. The truly unfortunate part is that Thorin survived his wounds long enough that he likely was aware they'd been killed. If it helps, I take just as harsh a view of Gwindor's foolish charge at the Nirnaeth and Fëanor's dumbassery in general. This isn't an anti-dwarf or even an anti-Thorin thing, this is an anti-wasting people thing.)
no subject
Date: 2018-12-06 10:48 pm (UTC)Bard could not have known whom to consult, no, but as you just pointed out, his friend Thranduil was considerably more experienced, so he might have asked him (if we go by "things he might have done better"). And while he acknowledges the question, he very pointedly doesn't answer it, which, to the dwarves, must be answer enough. (Let's be realistic about this. Everyone wanted this treasure, and the dwarves knew it.)
Thorin insulted them first? Sorry, but we must agree to disagree here. Thorin, as a leader, has every right to ask what an army is doing at his doorstep, especially since he (correctly) assumes they're there to plunder the treasure. This is not an insult. Bard is in the position to explain himself here, not Thorin. And this is why the "robber" comment is really a major diplomatic slip-up. He doesn't even introduce himself first.
He also, before introducing himself, says that they are "not yet foes". If I was a dwarf and sitting in the mountain, this would sound like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to me.
And I think this is one major point where we differ. You say Thorin should have been friendly and welcoming towards that army, and thus Bard's harsh tone was justified. I say he had every reason to be distrustful, and it would have been up to Bard to try and gain his trust. Especially since Thorin's conditions are very clearly stated: he doesn't want to be threatened or forced. This sounds very dwarvish to me. Go and force the moutain instead, it's more likely to budge.
Since Bard and Thranduil are the ones who want something from Thorin, I don't think being polite should involve "bending over backwards".
Let's not talk about Thranduil detaining the dwarves for the moment, that's a new can of beans. Yes, I think it was unreasonable, or at the very least *extremely* rude. (And the manner of questioning was already rude. Note that book!Thorin had no problem whatsoever with Elrond and vice versa, so he didn't hate elves on principle.)
We don't know about the comparison between Thorin and Dain. Thorin is certainly a stronger character than the Master, and his change of heart during the battle, as well as his parting words, indicate that he overcame the dragon gold. So I still say we can't make a comparison. We just don't know.
The battle was absolutely and 100% the orcs' fault. And Tolkien makes very clear that the Company's attack helped to save the day. To turn this around to say it could have lost their allies the battle sounds very far-fetched to me.
Battles involve risks. People get killed. Yes, they didn't coordinate the attack and made a "boneheaded move", but this boneheaded move was what raised the army's morale (not just the dwarves', mind!). They probably took a calculated risk and lost, but it was not a direct result of the earlier events.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-07 12:30 am (UTC)Where did I say Thorin should be 'friendly'? I'm saying he should have been diplomatic. I'm not talking about being nice, I'm talking about making nice and verbally out-manuevering Bard. (Given that Thorin is more practiced than Bard at oratory and public speaking, it should be easy for him to do!) Publicly proclaiming his confidence his 'friends' were only coming to check on him puts Thranduil and Bard in very different position than announcing he thinks they're there to steal from him. By expressing such confidence, Thorin still wrong-foots them, but in a way they can't get their backs up about - because it's what they should be doing. Bard can't very well admit that such an expression of confidence is misplaced! The best he can do at that point is say that he had feared the worst and is pleased to be wrong. And by not starting with the insults, Thorin doesn't get insults in return - which changes the tone of the subsequent interaction.
This also overlooks the not insignificant detail that while Thorin may be justified in his distrust, it's incontrovertible that without the aid of the Lake-men, he would not be in the Mountain at all. By treating their representative as if they now have to do still more to win his trust and deserve fair treatment after the fallout of his actions has completely destroyed their town and put them on the brink of complete collapse, he's showing a degree of ingratitude and entitlement that doesn't bode well for future interactions. And if I'm in Bard's shoes, there's no way I can indulge such an attitude. If I'm not trading with the Mountain - and with an attitude like Thorin's showing, I don't have much confidence I will be - I'm still going to have to trade with someone, and establishing a reputation for groveling and giving it all away as Thorin is demanding I do sets me up for uphill battles in future trade and diplomatic deals.
And again, I don't see how any of what you're claiming should happen works out for the Mountain long term. Sure, Thorin can force the Lakemen to their knees and make them grovel before he'll deign to give up what's due the descendants of Dale. (If he does at all - it doesn't sound from the text like he was planning on it.) But all that's going to do is breed resentment, and Thorin's people will pay for that in the form of higher food prices when they have to import food from farther away and a distrustful neighbor right on their doorstep. That's not the prosperous and respected kingdom Thorin recalls in his youth.
You're trying to say that Thorin is within his rights to demand what Thranduil and Bard were doing near his Mountain when they didn't know he was alive, but turn around and say that Thranduil - whose kingdom has been existent longer than Thorin has been alive - had no right to question what the dwarves were doing wandering around in his territory well away from the established road, and should have accepted Thorin refusing to answer such a basic question? *blinks*
The orcs may have been the aggressor in the battle, but that does not preclude Thorin or any other commanders of the allied armies making bad decisions. It's possible for me to say that the Japanese were at fault for US entrance into WWII yet still identify tactical decisions made by US commanders in that war that led to unnecessary casualties. The one does not negate the other.
Failure of discipline in battle has lost many a battle over the centuries. Experienced tacticians will attempt to engineer such failures by enemy forces - by offering an apparent 'retreat' or break in their lines, they can lure overconfident or undisciplined troops into a trap. Thorin's 'to me, to me!' moment broke the lines of both Dain and Bard's forces, and even drew off some of Thranduil's people, who all obeyed him above their own commanders. That kind of breakdown is something that you generally try to avoid in a battle. The text makes it clear Thorin's attack was successful in the short-term only - he went beyond the arms of the mountain and thus beyond help from what remained of the forces of his allies on those arms, and was being overwhelmed.
Far from saving the day, Thorin's charge petered out and left him surrounded, outnumbered, with no hope of relief and the defenses on the arms of the Mountain too depleted to withstand renewed assault. The allied armies were about to be soundly beaten, and would have been but for the timely arrival of the Eagles. Forgive me, but I think Thorin's 'calculated risk' was very badly calculated indeed. It was a high-risk gamble with little prospect of payoff.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-07 08:38 am (UTC)Of course the wisest thing would have been to not to insult at all! But no one did that, and no one was entirely justified.
And I confess that now I'm blinking too, because how on earth are Thorin's and Thranduil's situation comparable? Thranduil rightfully demanded an explanation, yes. But he did so in a needlessly hostile way, against people who posed no threat to him in numbers, had not harmed him before, and whose only trespass was that they had lost their way in a spider-infested forest and were looking for help. (Again, please note how Thorin and Elrond get along. The movie was wrong about that: the elves do a bit of teasing and the dwarves a bit of grumbling, but it's all very good-natured and an altogether pleasant stay.)
So it's ok for Thranduil to do this, but if Thorin says "wtf?" to an entire host of people who obviously want his property, half of whom are of a folk who have no right to it and treated him in a hostile manner before, then *he's* unreasonable?
(Again, I'm not saying he *is* reasonable. But I still think that looking at his faults only and excuse the others is highly biased.)
But since we're both blinking now and I don't want to fight, I suggest we call it a draw? We obviously won't convince each other. How do you feel about an orc-killing competition?
no subject
Date: 2018-12-07 02:52 pm (UTC)But yeah, we're going in circles. I also feel like in your pro-dwarf fervor, you're overlooking my (admittedly only stated once) reason for why I believe Thorin was unreasonable. Given what we're told about the effects of dragon gold (and looking at its observable effects on a character previously established to be a good or at absolute least competent leader, I'd say 'dragon sickness' is probably a better way to refer to it), I question whether Thorin was in his right mind for much of the time from regaining the Mountain until some point during/immediately after the Battle of Five Armies. What's more, I can't find anything in the text to indicate that Thorin knew that such an effect was possible - while the narrator is aware that dragon gold can do funny things to people, Gandalf never warned anyone about it. So I see Thorin being caught unaware by what is essentially a mental assault he didn't know he needed to guard against. (He also had no one around him who could have realized what was happening- if Thorin didn't know about dragon sickness, it's unlikely the rest of the dwarves did either; Bilbo recognized that something was not quite right but didn't have sufficient knowledge of dragon lore to identify what that 'something' might be.)
Orc killing? I hope you're not expecting any movie!Legolas-like defiance of the laws of physics. (Are there rules to the competition?)
no subject
Date: 2018-12-07 05:25 pm (UTC)Anyway, if you'd started this conversation by claiming that Thorin is a poor innocent victim and Bard was mean to him, it would have gone very differently.
Yes, I'm quite sure I remember the book. (Not your fault, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I rediscovered Tolkien in the Hobbit fandom, after being away for several years. There's an unfortunate tendency among people who dislike the movies to claim that Hobbit fans only thirst for Hot Dwarves and don't care about the book. Apparently - and no joke, I've heard this - one sign of a True Tolkien Nerd is that they hate the Hobbit movies? This is bullshit, and repeated exposure to this bullshit may be why I'm reacting a bit snappy here.) The book says that that the elves treated the dwarves harshly because of their old anti-dwarf grudges even though Thorin's family had nothing to do with that, and also that Thorin was angry about this - before the questioning even began. (Yes, again, it was unwise not to cooperate. But dwarves are described as stubborn and proud.) It also says that Thranduil had a well-known weakness for riches and that's why Thorin was especially unwilling to be pressured for information.
Was Thorin in his right mind? That is debatable, probably not. But unlike in the movies, I think book!Thorin isn't acting that much out of character. He wants this treasure, and especially the Arkenstone, before he even sets foot into Erebor, and I don't think he can be entirely excused with a mental condition. Pride, thick-headedness, grudginess and anger: he displays all those traits throughout the quest. *shrugs* So you see, I'm not even so much pro-dwarf. Just saying that they all made mistakes. Bard is grim and undiplomatic (and while I'm criticizing him, he's the one who can most likely be excused because he never learned this and at the time was pissed at Smaug, the Master, the Dwarves and the world in general). Thranduil has anti-dwarf resentments. Both attempt to force the dwarves into submission. Note that all three leaders learn from their mistakes and move on, and I think that's wonderful.
(No idea. It comes to me now that it might be difficult to find orcs around here. Hm.)