As bunn pointed out, it seems you're Legolas in this debate and I'm Gimli, so I should get myself ready for the next round of argument :)
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
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.)