Valar and War

Timdalf

Timdalf

Active Member
I simply do not understand why the Valar (any of them) would be anti-war... They are good. Therefore they instinctively know that anyone who opposes them is ipso facto evil, to whatever degree. It is a good thing to wage war against wrong or evil. It is not a fall. A fall would be NOT to oppose evil...
I posed the following questions:
Q: Why are the Valar reluctant or unwilling to go to war against obvious evil? My question also implies that this needs to be explained in the film.
Q: Absolute good wins in war with any evil... These are not good in shades of white!
Q: I can't think Tolkien would agree with the idea that war is intrinsically evil... he was not a pacifist.
Q: This is modern pacifism...
It is in no way a surrender to Morgoth or his evil to war against him. His fall IS to oppose the good, ipso facto. If he opposes the good, he has fallen. Manwe is not falling by making war on him. All this kumbaya stuff is simply not typical of mythologies... Greek, Norse... Christian
So explain to me the logic and point of Prof. Corey's response to my question....
 
Last edited:
Alright, Professor Olsen was talking about this yesterday during the broadcast, but I think we can safely address it here.

Tolkien was certainly not a pacifist, but he also clearly had some feelings about the horror of war and the price that is paid, even by the victors. The picture we are painting is certainly not one of pacifism either. Pacifism implies making some sort of concessions in order to "pacify" an aggressor. That is clearly not what is happening here. Making overtures and attempting to encourage harmony is not making concessions. In order to pacify the Melkor in the picture we have painted, we would be showing Manwe offering Melkor co-rulership or simply abdicating to him to avoid war.

The picture we are painting is one of a relationship between two brothers. Manwe has been appointed to leadership, Melkor has not. Melkor insists that the leadership should be his, and takes steps to take it. Manwe does the very best he can to reconcile with Melkor, but notably does not give Melkor what he wants, which is the throne. This is diplomatic reconciliation, not pacification.

I feel that you may be missing a critical component of the themes of war in Tolkien, and I point you to the Scouring of the Shire in The Return of the King:

Frodo and the gang return to the Shire to find it twisted and changed. At no time do they capitulate to the demands of those who have usurped power there, but Frodo's first impulse is to make contact with Lotho and get things sorted out. At last resort, they do engage in armed conflict against the thugs who have been running roughshod over the residents of the Shire, but he insists that no hobbits, even those who have been serving Lotho and Sharkey, be killed. When the final confrontation takes place, Frodo refuses to allow the hobbits to kill Saruman, even knowing how much death and misery he has caused. These are the same impulses we are showing in Manwe.

To engage in violence should always be repugnant, no matter how evil the enemy. While we may not see this in Greek or Norse traditions (Norse being a mythology that clearly idealizes death in combat), we do have very clear evidence of this in the teachings of Christ, ( "Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves", "Turn the other cheek", "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword"). This is in no way (in my opinion) encouraging pacifism ("He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one").

War itself is certainly an intrinsically bad thing, one which should never be entered into lightly. This is due to the cost, not only in the lives of your own people, but the destruction you enact upon your enemy.

Should we fight? Absolutely. Should we do so without exhausting all other options beyond naive pacifism? Certainly not.

I do not know you personally, but for myself, if someone was an imminent threat to my family, I believe that I could kill them. But I also believe that I would feel remorse over that for the rest of my life.
 
Worth mentioning that the Valar we've developed over the course of this season are not the Valar as they appear in the Silmarillion or the Book of Lost Tales, but sort of an amalgam, with certain bits played up, toned down, or excised entirely for the purpose of making interesting TV. Manwe in particular as we've built him is very focused on bringing the Valar and Arda at large into "harmony", which I would say is absent from the Silmarillion or Book of Lost Tales, but certainly seems far less explicit than we've made it. It really seems to me to be our Manwe's driving motivation in an obvious, front-and-center sort of way. I think Manwe in the published Silm really does consider it a bit of a failure on his and the other Valar's part that war was necessary: in our adaptation, we've turned this into a higher-stakes struggle for Manwe, to the point wher ehe maybe waits too long and gives Melkor a lot more time and space to fall in line.

And that's really the thing, is that we're dialing up the stakes on this decision, for a lot of reasons, and as such, as Leader of the Valar, Manwe really needs to be the final one holding out hope for the Music as it would have been if not for Melkor. I certainly disagree that this is modern pacifism in any way: what this represents, (physically for Arda, and thematically for Manwe) is a sort of surrender to that ideal of harmony, an acknowledgement that there will always be a piece of the Music that is not quite right, for the rest of history, and that is a truth he doesn't want to face. I think it not only amplifies the themes that are already present in the Silm, but presents them in a way that is really great and interesting for TV.
 
It is a theme in Tolkien's work that the good guys do not force someone to make the right decision. The more 'good' the character, the more extreme they are in avoiding pressuring someone.

The starkest example is at the Council of Elrond. They've reached the end of the discussion. It's clear that there needs to be a decision. Bilbo has already made his gallant offer, and been kindly rejected. Frodo has to decide whether or not he will speak up.

NO ONE makes eye contact with him.

Now, you could argue that the jury doesn't look at the prisoner they have condemned, or that the other members of the Council haven't realized the importance of hobbits yet. But Boromir is the only one who laughed at Bilbo, and Elrond specifically says that he thought this task was appointed for Frodo...AFTER Frodo decides.

Elrond thinks that Frodo is destined to be the Ringbearer, and that it's the one chance for the peoples of Middle Earth to defeat Sauron...and yet he will not request it of him or so much as look his way. He merely 'passively' waits for Frodo to make the decision on his own. This is not a failing on Elrond's part, but an example for his respect for the agency of others. Elrond will not allow the Fellowship to swear an oath for similar reasons - he wants them all to be free to choose in the moment what to do, and not be bound by the oath. [Well, heh, maybe some history there...]

The other example would be Gandalf's healing of Théoden. Yes, Gandalf actively intervenes there. He puts everything he has into persuading Théoden. And yet...he very much leaves the decision of what to do up to Théoden. The scenes in the film where Gandalf puts his hand on Théoden's armchair (or raises his staff against a crazed Denethor) seem so very out of place specifically because Gandalf never does such things in the book. Gandalf (in the book) waits for Théoden to ask his advice, and it's very much after the fact.


Manwë is trying to save Melkor. But he wants to do it in such a way that it is Melkor's choice to rejoin the side of the angels. He doesn't want to force him.

War...is very much forcing the issue.
 
Timdalf said:
Q: Why are the Valar reluctant or unwilling to go to war against obvious evil? My question also implies that this needs to be explained in the film.
Click to expand...

I agree that this question should definitely be addressed and discussed within the show. The Valar should raise a variety of points in their debate, Estel should ask questions, and Elrond should comment. We even have Bilbo giving his viewpoint on going to war in the final episode. This is something the audience deserves to hear addressed directly.

As for 'Why are the Valar reluctant to declare War?' - the answer is that the consequences of war are great. Large swaths of Arda will be utterly destroyed in a war between Melkor and the Valar, and they have to be well aware of this. Melkor's evil hasn't reached a level to justify that level of retaliation for most of Season One. He's more an inconvenient jerk than 'obvious evil' at this early stage. Who is he hurting, really? Where are the victims of his malice? Prior to the awakening of the Children....it's Yavanna's creatures, the lands of Middle Earth and his own followers. All will be much more damaged by a War than they are under Melkor, so.....

Melkor is redeemable. He could choose to join the Valar and help them to shape Middle Earth. He....does not make this choice. He (repeatedly) makes the opposite choice. But Manwë wants to give him every opportunity to make that choice. He knows that forcibly defeating Melkor and locking him up is unlikely to make that happen, and seeks to reconcile without constraining his 'brother.'

Q: Absolute good wins in war with any evil... These are not good in shades of white!
Click to expand...

...And the Valar do win this War, handily. They are not afraid of losing (or at least, that fear has not been mentioned as a reason to avoid war). We could have Estel raise this possibility so that Elrond can discount it and mention their other, much more valid, reasons for not choosing to use force right away. Among other things, the word 'war' does not exist in their vocabulary yet.

Q: I can't think Tolkien would agree with the idea that war is intrinsically evil... he was not a pacifist.
Click to expand...

No, he was not. He certainly wasn't one to wax poetic about the glories of war, either, though. His characters war out of necessity, and there are consequences to war which he does not gloss over. He has Merry chide Frodo that merely being 'shocked and sad' won't be enough to deal with the ruffians in the Shire. Even so, Frodo puts rather strict rules of engagement on the hobbits to prevent war crimes in the Battle of Bywater. Tolkien also mentions that healing among the elves was better carried out by those who did not kill (Aragorn's skill at both notwithstanding). Individual pacifism is not a bad thing in Tolkien's stories, as he has Frodo choose that over the course of LotR, even trying to refuse to carry a sword at the end.

As a devout Catholic, I would think that he more or less subscribed to Just War Theory: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

Q: This is modern pacifism...
Click to expand...
Addressed by others above. Just War theory states that war is just only when it meets certain criteria (defending against an aggressor and exhausting diplomatic solutions are two of the criteria that must be met). Failure to meet these criteria would mean that the war is judged unjust by classical Christian theologians (aka St. Thomas Aquinas). For a war to be considered 'just,' it must be launched for a just cause and right intention (no pretext). It must be declared publicly by a proper authority (ie, the state). War is meant to be a last resort, after diplomatic solutions have failed and all attempts to resolve the conflict without war were unsuccessful. There needs to be an evaluation of the consequences - can the war hope to achieve its intended outcome, and will the cost be proportional to the good you hope to gain? These are predictions, not 'known' quantities, but if you fail to take the consequences of your actions into account, it's not a just war.

Pacifism always concludes that war is the wrong answer. Just war theory does not always reach that conclusion, though it may conclude that many or most wars are, in fact, not just wars.

To apply just war theory to this conflict:
1) Manwë is the proper authority and has the right to declare war.
2) Diplomatic measures are implemented from the time Melkor enters Arda, and are increased in their forcefulness over time.
3) The destruction predicted to result from the war is too great to justify the intervention of the Valar until after Melkor's more grievous deeds come to light. (When the Elves awaken, that balance is tipped further).
4) Is the cause of the Valar just? Are they sure of that? I would say that they don't all reach that conclusion immediately. But yes, they do get there. Since 'just cause' translates to defending against an aggressor, they all have to eventually recognize that that is who Melkor is.
 
The debate of the Valar that Tolkien gave us is the debate on Finwë's marital status, which is not quite the same thing as a debate on declaring War against Melkor. But for anyone interested in exploring how the Valar view problems, I think it is worth reviewing.

They do consider all angles of the question, and who is at fault, etc. They acknowledge that they are dealing with Arda Marred, not Arda as it was meant to be. And, significantly, Manwë (I think it is Manwë) states that while it would be better for Finwë to remain single, he does not feel comfortable forcing him to make that choice. So, that is why Finwë is given permission to remarry (with the caveat that Míriel must promise never to be re-embodied.) What is permitted is not only what would be 'best' but what is...allowed. The other choices are left to the freedom of the individuals involved.
 
I think that the Valar (in effect) ceding Middle Earth to Melkor when they retreat to Valinor could be seen as a serious mistake. Their reason for doing so is not aimed at placating him - they decide they should all go, and he disagrees and decides to stay, so the separation is more mutually agreed upon. But...it still sets up the war that is definitely coming now.

As for 'why' they don't go all-in at the destruction of the Lamps, the main reason is that he is under deep suspicion, but is not identified as the guilty party - it's the balrogs who actually did it, and he was 'innocently' with the other Valar when the Lamps came tumbling down.

But this decision can be seen as weakness or foolishness on their part.

After that time, all diplomatic overtures fail majorly....and the path to war is inexorable. But in Tolkien's own timeline, the gap between the destruction of the Lamps and the war of the Powers is 1100 Valian years. The only difference is that Melkor is 'missing' for much of that time, so the Valar can't do anything about him, whereas we have him openly declared ruler of Utumno.
 
I still like the Idea that the Valar are at first not fighting in pohysical form but as powers of nature and that their developement of weaponry and armour is a later developement which already shows a slight corruption by Morgoth , whom i imagine the inventor of Weaponry and armor (as I recall he appeares to be the first persona in the sil which is described as wearing mail...)
 
MithLuin said:
The debate of the Valar that Tolkien gave us is the debate on Finwë's marital status, which is not quite the same thing as a debate on declaring War against Melkor. But for anyone interested in exploring how the Valar view problems, I think it is worth reviewing.

They do consider all angles of the question, and who is at fault, etc. They acknowledge that they are dealing with Arda Marred, not Arda as it was meant to be. And, significantly, Manwë (I think it is Manwë) states that while it would be better for Finwë to remain single, he does not feel comfortable forcing him to make that choice. So, that is why Finwë is given permission to remarry (with the caveat that Míriel must promise never to be re-embodied.) What is permitted is not only what would be 'best' but what is...allowed. The other choices are left to the freedom of the individuals involved.
Click to expand...

Well put. It is a difficult decision, even for the Valar to make much less Finwe, and the text makes it clear that it rarely works out well when the Valar attempt to force a decision upon the Children when they would not be guided. They allow this choice to be made while implicitly advising him that just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done. The respect of the Valar for human (or in this case Eldarin) free will allows tension between potentially good and bad outcomes to coexist. The notions of Arda marred and the various falls are closely related to Catholic theology of sin, grace, and human freedom. (How can a good God allow evil to exist? God allows humans to freely choose to follow Him or pursue their own desires.) The hosts seem to be sensitive to the moral structure of Tolkien's worldview and are operating within it appropriately.
 
I saw a comment in another thread that this was a "pre-gunpowder" world, but I thought it would be useful to consider that this might not actually true, except in the world of Men. this seems relevant to the subject of war, and why it would be avoided, which has already been very well and thoroughly addressed; but I also wanted to tie the issue of technology to it, because it's fundamentally the same.

in his letter to Milton, Tolkien referred to the "magic" of the Elves and Morgoth or Sauron as being incompatible (paraphrasing). on the one hand, the knowledge of the Elves and of course the Valar is more complete than the learning of Men would ever be, whereas the servants of Morgoth and Sauron were also pioneering in what we might call science: but the chief difference in how that knowledge is used has to do with what is wasted in the process, and in the end result. any of them would likely have been able to make bombs or other war machines (cannons, chemical or biological weapons, etc); but only Sauron would have been disposed, were he not himself still capable of the fuller exercise of power, like the Elves, but with an entirely different object (what ultimately defines the art). for Sauron, to achieve what we have achieved in war could almost be seen as a futile exercise, considering how many other simpler, yet fundamentally more terrifying options were at his disposal.

when something like gunpowder comes into the hands of Men, and transforms our whole world, this is because, in our ignorance, we see its destructive potential as power, while true power would allow us to achieve our goals without destroying so much besides - true power is efficient. but destructive, dominating power, once unleashed, cannot be controlled or contained. it begins an arms race, which has the potential to end in complete annihilation.

in Orcs and their technology, we see what Men could still become, and "achieve". but this would also be true of Elves, I think, were not so much emphasis placed on the importance of our mysterious Gift. and perhaps one of the most curious things about the Gift is how all of our natural "shortcomings" seem to hasten and multiply it.

on a side note, I believe that the similarity of words like thanatos (death) and anathema (offering) could have contributed to this philosophy, that death itself could once have been free of the kind of dread that is now associated with it... and even though the reason for that dread seems inescapably obvious, it's hard not to love the thought that we were meant to live without it. I may never be able to prove it, but I'd love to believe that this assertion could actually be as ancient as Tolkien attempted to portray. maybe someone else has something on that.

there are things in the mind of Iluvatar that cannot be comprehended in the philosophies of any of the Valar, and the significance of that fact cannot be overstated: what we see as the Good is not the whole truth, or Morgoth simply would never have been, and neither probably would we.

on the subject of just war... I'm inclined to think that it mostly derives from a true and complete understanding of the enemy, in which no shortcuts or oversights can be excused. if another solution is possible, this understanding will provide it, otherwise it will indicate which measures are a waste of time; but there isn't always time to understand your enemy before they force your hand, and to merely avoid war at any cost will almost always give the enemy an advantage. with the Elves, the Valar recognized that the whole reason they'd come to Arda was at stake, and so whatever the cost, they had to act. it was unfortunate that they couldn't act sooner, but this was an enemy that was simply too devious to be able to act with any certainty - even after all that they'd been through, they still didn't fully understand him. but they had to defend what was most important to them.

in modern society, we often give our leaders and protectors the "benefit of a doubt" with respect to the liberties they take in our defense; but this allows them to increasingly disregard the consequences of their actions, until it results in corruption and oppression. it's unfortunate that the very concept of a "just ruler" seems to be absent from modern politics, but this is what the Valar were, and what is necessary for our own leaders and protectors to be, if we want to be able to call ourselves free - cautious to a fault. still the fact remains that war and sacrifice cannot always be avoided, if the things that matter most are to be preserved.

one of the themes I love the most in Tolkien's work is that there are some enemies that should be fought with all our might, and to the last breath, even if there is no hope of victory. it is absolutely true, and critically important for free people to recognize. if all that can be accomplished through such a sacrifice is to weaken an enemy who is going to enslave and destroy everything no matter what, it is still better to resist, and do what damage we can, than to surrender, and become enlisted in our own downfall.

this is a great thread, guys... so many profound comments. wow
 
Last edited:
Well there is the general Theme of technological decline in Tolkien...

I guess the Ainur for example don't need much trechnology as they have their magic. The Valar may know about chemistry and explosives but maybe don't like or use them. Morgoth may know and use it but hold it secret. So maybe at one point there is such a thing like an Ang-band high-culture... but it declines after the Drowning of Beleriand and Orcs and maybe even Sauron atre thrown back to primitive tribal standards. Then Sauron rises again, and maybe with him technology... ther are signs thar metallurgy arrives Middle-Earth with the Numenoreans (again) so we can assume a serious throwback between the first and late second Age, and then maybe another throwback after the drowning of Numenor and later Saurons Fall in the last alliance...

Again Sauron needs time to regain his old state, and Saruman#s Gunpoiwder alchemy is regarded as something new and unknown during the War of the rin, even if there probably had already been a higher state of technology in second Age Numenor.
 
I have a tendency to think of magic and technology as the same thing, but whatever terms we use, it can be helpful to have a distinction between power that derives from a fundamental understanding of nature, and that which is discovered, but not fully understood.

one of the things I had in mind in my last post was how cobalt got its name - from "kobold ore". it was the first metal to be discovered since ancient times, evidently. while this by itself wasn't that big of a deal (as it pertained to goblins), it still impacted the picture of goblins that I think I previously held, that was almost entirely defined by Tolkien himself. but as I read about fairies and goblins, I'm struck by how widespread those superstitions were, and how seriously they were taken, and continue to be taken even in modern times... which is just weird.

traditionally, all fae seem to have advanced and secret knowledge, probably deriving from the powers to which "fae" actually refers - that of the Fates (the Moirai, and the Norns, or divinity in general); and they possess a kind of magical or racial hardiness that allows them to inhabit regions that are inhospitable to humans, like angels and demons themselves - even though there is something about fae that everyone seems tempted to hold separate (if only barely) from the divine or infernal, as spirits of nature (regardless of whether there was originally such a distinction). but Tolkien's Elves and Goblins seem to be either a bold new crystallization of far more fluid concepts, or a detection of consistent patterns and trends in folklore I haven't studied enough to pick up on. I just imagine that a lot of previous folklore could find some way to still hold true, or at the very least, that it's not irrelevant - but it's a huge subject, one that may not be fully accessible to those of us who haven't actually been to the Isles, or even Europe, let alone grown up there.

I don't know if the technology of either the Elves or the Goblins could truly be said to be waning, though - or Men's for that matter, except theirs may never quite catch up; but it does seem as if the vitality and charisma of the ancestors is spread out among their descendants, so that members of each generation are for the most part less exceptional than those of the previous one. to whatever extent their technology (or their magic) derives from sheer will, it would definitely reflect a decline. on the other hand, the world is filling up with Men, whose collective strength surely adds up to something more. and it may be that they inherit quite a few things from Elves and Orcs, although in the end any "magical" arts would pass into legend as well, because we favor "mechanical" stuff - not that magic isn't. somebody slap me if I start going in circles

as for the Valar... it's interesting how their powers seem to wane, as if they only ever had so much energy to expend. but one thing that might be interesting to consider about this is that the forms initially taken by world-animating magic (including living forms) could have a tendency to be simpler, more powerful, and more recognizable as magic: but as time wears on, such spells might acquire a complexity and refinement that more and more resembles what some would consider "natural", or mundane. everything, no matter how mundane it seems, is ultimately magic at the root. so the general "decline" may not represent true decadence, or even a decrease in overall manifested power, although it could be those things too - like with the Elder Things in the Mountains of Madness, who, after eons of not needing or using their full capabilities, simply lost them. rather, it could be that more of their energy is being spent in close attention to minute detail, whether this is to engage the enemy on ever more clandestine fronts, or simply because the rest of their work is already finished, marred though it may be. regardless of how it turned out, those faithful to Iluvatar have played their part, and fulfilled their destiny - as have those who tried to do otherwise, ultimately.

but in having their powers bound to Arda, it does almost seem like the Valar may have taken on a kind of mortality... what Yavanna said about the Trees being something she could only accomplish once seems like a very strange thing for an immortal being to admit, as if she was feeling her age, or that there wasn't enough time left in the world to make up for what had just been destroyed - despite that she had created them in a fairly short amount of time. but maybe she was only that attached, and felt their loss so deeply that she no longer wanted to make anything else, lest the same thing happen to it. as the expression of different kinds of power, maybe the Valar have unique relationships to their own handiwork - in any case, hers is seemingly that of a mother.

I'm always fascinated by the existence of lost technologies though, as many of the ruins in Middle-earth seem to bear witness to... that there are so many of them, and all so magnificent, adds up to something very profound, although it's possible that I'm just letting LotRO get to me. I'll have to read more carefully with that in mind

Numenor, though... I believe there are some deep conversations to be had about Numenor - seriously, not just for pun.
 
Last edited:
Well i don't know... Ever since i had worked through the history of middle-earth series i had problems to imagine late Númenor as something different than a strange steampunk culture ... With something like almost jules vernian captain nemo/ nautilus feeling about it.

But that wasn't always the case... When i read the silmarillion i thought of the númenorians as much similar to highly idealised and mythologicalized classical greeks. When reading the lord of the rings the numenoreans had an almost bronze age or celtic prehistoric air about them... Like celtic or roman remnants in early arthurian dark age britain...
 
Last edited:
absolutely. the steampunk idea is interesting, something I hadn't thought of; but the lost technologies I tend to think of are things like whatever would enable the construction of massive stone structures, or Greek fire, or orichalcum

but it seems to me like Numenor is supposed to represent Atlantis. and there are similarities to Minoan civilization as well
 
Last edited:
bronze age Celtic, I think, is right on the mark. there seems to be a parallel between what was built by the Numenoreans, and our own cyclopean ruins, of which stone circles and henges are the most mysterious - and which Minoan civilization also has a connection to, albeit a mysterious one. the Ring of Doom reminds me of these: but there was only one Ring of Doom - right? if these exist in Middle-earth (and why wouldn't they, entangled as they are with Celtic superstition), who would have built them, and for what purpose?

it's possible that they could have been used for necromancy - that this is how far the Numenoreans had actually fallen (there's a reason for this that I'll post elsewhere, even if it's a tenuous one). but this would depend on there being references to stone rings outside of Valinor - or anything else that might contradict the theory
 
Last edited:
I was really thinking about the role celtic and older remnants play in insular british medieval literature... people did not exactly know where the Stone Circles, Dolmens, Cromlechs, ruins came from so they imagoined they were built by Druids or Giants.

The Steampunk thing comes really from the History of Middle-earth, especially the lost road where flying ships, ships made of metal and obviously steam-driven, and maybe even gunpowder seem to be mentioned or alluded to. So in some way i would like a depiction of late Numenor as some sort of Steampunk-Gothic Culture, highly industrialized with a mix of ancient designs and futuristic technology. But on the Other hand... all those remarks were not canon.
 
Hi.
The "Golden Past" opposed to the "Declining Present" is not only found in Tolkien, but is a common trope in Medieval and Ancient literature. It is quite common. The idea of progress seems to be rather modern, I don't think it is found before the Enlightenment.
The difference between magic and technology/craft might be a bit muddled in the mind of the ancients. Blacksmithing is an example, where a lot of "magical" explanations were used to explain the process of what we would call craftsmanship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top