The Madness of the Horses

[Marielle]

Catching up on the last few sessions, I was as concerned as many seemed to be of the idea that Glorfindel intentionally drove the Nazgul's mounts mad at the river. This seems highly problematic for a number of reasons, most notable:

1) the death of nine creatures might seem like a small price to pay for the safety of the Ring/Ringbearer, but that is distressingly close to the "ends justify the means" outlook the text explicitly rejects elsewhere

2) doing so would be a direct act of domination over the horses, which is problematic to say the least

and

3) driving the horses mad to make them sacrifice themselves is very different from a being choosing to sacrifice himself/herself "for the greater good" as Glorfindel did (or Gandalf will)

Instead of Glorfindel, I propose a separate cause of the madness, drawn from one of the Professor's favorite lines of Tolkien prose. In RotK, we will read

From all his policies and webs of fear and treachery, from all his stratagems and wars [Sauron's] mind shook free; and throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten.

If the horses, captives from Rohan broken in service to the Nine, are driven entirely or in large part by the will of their Riders, then the distraction of the Nazgul -- by the fire, river, and wrathful elf-lord -- might very well make the mounts "steerless, berefit of will" and despairing. That, perhaps, is the madness which drives them into the raging waters.

 

[ForthDauntless3]

I advocated for this explanation in the Discord chat, though it didn't seem to catch on. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking in this direction.

 

[amysrevenge]

Hmm.

I guess I have a harder time worrying over the horses, when we're chopping down Orcs and evil Men left and right without really worrying too much about it. If Glorfindel had had a bow, would we be overly concerned if he popped a couple arrows into some pursuing horses? It's like the movie trope where the hero dispatches minions left and right, but then insists on sparing the life of the evil mastermind because killing him would be wrong - what about Minion #67, was killing him somehow OK?

 

[Halstein]

Well, we could lean on the following from the movie "Clercks", from the discussion on the 2nd Death Star contractors (from Wikiquotes: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Clerks_(film) )

Roofer: Three weeks ago, I was offered a job up in the hills. Beautiful house, tons of property—a simple reshingling job! They told me if I could finish it in one day, I would double my price. Then I realized whose house it was.
Randal: Whose house was it?
Roofer: Dominic Bambino's.
Randal: "Baby-Face" Bambino, the gangster?
Roofer: The same! The money was right, but the risk was too high. I knew who he was, and based on that, I turned the job over to a friend of mine.
Dante: [to Randal] Based on his personal politics.
Roofer: Right! And the next week, the Floressi Family puts out a hit on Baby-Face's house! My friend was shot and killed; didn't even finish reshingling!
Randal: No way.
Roofer: I'm alive because I knew the risk involved with that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. Any contractor working on that Death Star knew the risk involved; if they got killed, it's their own fault. A roofer listens to this [pointing to his heart], not his wallet.

 

[Arnthro]

Let us all listen to our hearts rather than wallets!

 

[ForthDauntless3]

I guess I have a harder time worrying over the horses, when we're chopping down Orcs and evil Men left and right without really worrying too much about it.

I think a big part of the issue is the idea that Glorfindel might have used the horses to attack the Nazgûl—instrumentalizing the horses—rather than simply attacking the horses directly. It's one thing to kill a soldier, or even a support animal, during battle. It would be something quite different to, say, infect a POW with a contagious disease and then allow him to escape, thereby transmitting the disease back to his army. The second is an example of instrumentalization, and it would be considered reprehensible by any modern standard for the laws of war.

We can argue about what exactly it would mean to deliberately induce a stampede among the horses. By my reckoning, it would be closer to my disease example (though admittedly less severe) than to killing in battle.

 

[Arnthro]

Scar deliberately induced a stampede upon Mufasa and that was pretty flippin' lame.