[eriktrautman]

I love the idea of that but do wish it didn’t require altering so many of the basic facts. The most compelling alternate histories use the same set of facts but show how the victors were misguided and misled by their assumptions, because it is more tragic that way.

[Apocryphon]

Then you'll probably love some of these, particularly the early War of the Ring set in 2450 and featuring a fellowship that includes both Saruman and Smeagol.

http://www.oocities.org/davidbofinger/ame.htm

[jeanjogr]

i think there are a lot of plot points in Tolkien's legendarium where you do not need to change the fact to change the perspective:

- the Elves are a puppet of the Valar, doing their bid in exchange for land and favours in the Undying land. Numenor is even more so a client state - sided with us? you're rewarded with longer life and your own territory.

- while the Valar do not encourage the colonization of the land of the "lesser" races (note: there are "lesser" races) in Middle Earth by their clients - Elves following Fëanor and the Numenorians colonies -, they really do not do much to prevent it. When things go south for their clients, they of course help them survive in Middle Earth through open warfare and pardon almost all of the rebels (so much for not supporting the colonization!). It is not so much different from the US being ostensibly against colonialism but bankrolling France in Indochina.

- they keep their "no direct support, but no condemnation" policy on colonial powers for a while. They do not want to harm their clients when their second-rate clients want to renegotiate their terms (aka the Numenorians wanting immortality) so they call on big boss Eru. In line with their history of not wanting to dirty their hands, but still pursuing their policy objectives.

- when their colonial clients are on the verge of disappearing (Gondor before the War of the Ring), they send CIA political operatives to engineer resistance, coups, and remake Middle Earth in their fashion. My bad, they are "Istari". Those agents have no qualms scarifying the lesser people and getting involved in their politics. I have no doubt that the sole purpose of reinstalling the Numenorian dynasty is to help the war effort (it is well known that internal strife bolsters the war effort), not to replace the current leadership - now quite distant from the Valar - by a man who owes everything to the Valar and their subordinates. He was even raised in a pro-Valar Elven colony! The Dunedain program exists only to have a convenient leader to choose if you want to topple current Gondorian leadership. I mean if, say, the US had hosted the descendants of the Capetian - Bourbon kings of France since the French Revolution and tried to push for France to become a kingdom again under their brand new American-raised kingdom after WWII instead of that pesky de Gaulle, would anyone think it is solely for French interests?

- speaking of which, it is good that Aragorn becomes the King because he was born to become king. Right-of-birth is not a very compelling point. Cheap tricks ("the hands of a king are the hands of a healer!") are used to prop up the new Numenorian regime.

- industrial technology is terrible, because it is direct competition to the nature/magic based technology of the Valar and their surrogate.

- Saruman is beyond help because he chose to get power for himself rather than prop up the Valar client states' power. I guess you can make a point that betraying your bosses is wrong, but is a Numenorian disctatorship (whose leader is put into power by one of the Istari) that much better than direct dictatorship by one of the Istari?

And that's just on the top of my head.

[baud147258]

> speaking of which, it is good that Aragorn becomes the King because he was born to become king. Right-of-birth is not a very compelling point

well Gondor was still claiming to be a monarchy, ruled by a regent waiting for the return of its rightful king, no? Though I'll agree that Aragorn's claim was made easier by the death of the previous ruler and Aragorn's support by foreign powers

[jeanjogr]

Indeed it was, however:

- Stewards ruled for 1000 years. I would wager that the idea that Kings would return and that stewards rule was a temporary thing was a purely ceremonial thing. We do not know (or at least I do not know - perhaps it is stated somewhere in the books) whether the people of Gondor would find a randomly found King more legitimate to rule them than the Stewards' line. Aragorn is a special case, since he had been running a long-con PR campaign well before the War of the Ring, and was acclaimed as a ruler because he was an effective commander in the great war - Dunedain heritage may not have been necessary.

- Right to rule some land because of one's birth is of course wrong. Aragorn pressing his legal (but immoral) right to rule because of his birth should not be praised, and should be seen for what it is: elites fighting to reclaim more power over the common folk.

[baud147258]

> whether the people of Gondor would find a randomly found King more legitimate to rule them than the Stewards' line

I think the legitimacy of the rule of Stewards' line was derived from the kings of Gondor, since they ruled in their name, while waiting for the return of a king. Even 1000 after, it was still called a kingdom. And then the heir of the line of the Stewards supported Aragorn, perhaps in part because he was the legitimate heir to the kingdom

> elites fighting to reclaim more power over the common folk.

considering the previous regime had all the trapping of a monarchy, I don't think the situation of the common folk would change in the regions directly ruled by Aragorn (and it would change nothing in the regions which are ruled by vassals of Aragorn, which make up most of Gondor, where Aragorn wouldn't have much say

[jeanjogr]

For the first point, I agree that _legally_ the Stewards rules depends on Gondor being a Kingdom without Kings. But legality and legitimacy are two different things. We can only speculate whether the people & the nobles of Gondor think the Kingdom part matter or if they would still think the Stewards ought to rule even if they did not put up with the Stewards waiting for the King charade.

Perhaps people think it's just ceremonial and the reason Stewards and their lines ought to rule is because they have done so for time immemorial (well, almost) and they've done a great job at it. A wannabe King arguing that _akshually_ they should be the ruler would be met with scorn - a random nobody bereft of any lordship that presses ancient and irrelevant legal rules.

Or perhaps the waiting-for-the-king part is essential, and people think that Stewards ought to rule because they've been appointed by the Kings and are doing a great job keeping the Kingdom ready for the return of any King.

I do not think we have much evidence whether it is the former or the latter. Aragorn - as a leader of the Great War, with the Steward dead and the heir of the Steward owing his life to him - has much more going for him than just being technically the heir. The fact that he is acclaimed does not tell us how important was being the legal heir vs. saving the kingdom vs. being installed by the Steward heir & Valar operatives. Perhaps a random noble from Gondor would have been able to claim the throne in the same conditions, à la Bonaparte. We do not know.

In the end, it's been 1000 years. Not many people support 1000-year-old claims. How many people care about the Byzantine Empire succession, or what the Capetians are up to?

For the second point, I poorly worded what I meant. What is painted as grand achievement and positive thing - the return of the King - is just one noble replacing another noble as the dictator, with a not so insignificant part of the story being about noble #1 campaign to depose noble #2. Hardly something to praise.

[gaustin]

I find the Hobbit and LOTR terribly boring. But these interpretations are fascinating and delightful.

[Razengan]

HN needs more of this.