Debate: Saruman’s influence

[gate7ole]

Topic
What would the situation in the Shire have been if Saruman hadn't come there?

Team A: Celebrien , Elennainie, Gil-Galad, Húrin Thalion, Melian
Situation would have been much the same as described in the “Scouring of Shire".

Team B: Anamatar VI, Finduilas, FoolOfAtook, Mrs. Maggott, Grond.
Situation would have been as normal as hobbit life can be.

Judges: Hirila, Lhunithilie, gate7ole

The debate will last until Wednesday 19th.

[gate7ole]

A few rules for the debate.
There is no strict rule according to the sequence of posts. A team can write consecutive posts without breaking any rule. Yet, it is better to keep the flow of one post at a time for both teams.
Any team can start the debate.
Each post should start by stating the Team it belongs.
All posts must be directly related to the debate. No chatting or spamming is allowed.
The only permissible book is the Lord of the Rings. Quotes can be used only from this book.

Advice:
Use quotes to back your arguments. Try not only to reject the opponent’s argument but also provide an alternative.
It is good in a couple occasions (half the way and at the end) that each team sums its arguments in a post, since it helps everyone.
Finally the most important is to have fun!


One observation about the topic.
The topic suggests that Saruman will not come at the Shire (e.g. he will be killed at the battle of Isengard). But still his past influence over Shire and its people will exist. I say this to prevent people from understanding the case as that Saruman never mixed with the hobbits.

[Mrs. Maggott]

In Chapter 8 of ROTK/LOTR, “The Scouring of the Shire”, the four hobbits return from their part in the War of the Ring only to find that its last battle fought in the Shire itself. And yet, Merry and Pippin had already become aware of a connection between Saruman and the Shire when the came upon boxes of pipe-weed in the ruins of Orthanc after the Wizard’s overthrow by Treebeard and his Ents. After the destruction of the Ring, Frodo and the hobbits with their companions come upon a much reduced Saruman with his companion Wormtongue in the wilderness. He is “going somewhere” and that “somewhere” turns out to be the Shire. When he is finally confronted at the end, he tells Frodo, “’Well,’ thought I, ‘if they’re such fools, I will get ahead of them and teach them a lesson. One ill turn deserves another.’”

But suppose Saruman had never decided to come to the Shire; suppose he had simply sent his minions north to establish contact and never made known to them his intention to come or anything other than the shipping of pipe-weed, or, in the alternative, what if he had died during the siege of Orthanc and his plans simply not known to his minions in the north. Would in fact, the Scouring of the Shire have ever occurred? Would there have been a need to “defeat and destroy” the army of “ruffians” that the four hobbits find upon their return to the Shire? I don’t think so and there are a number of reasons to believe that such would not have been the case.

Sam Gamgee notes: “All the same,” said Sam, “you can’t deny that others besides our Halfast have seen ***** folk crossing the Shire – crossing it, mind you: there are more that are turned back at the borders. The Bounders have never been so busy before.” The Shadow of the Past, FOTR/LOTR

And, of course, the alarm cry is raised when the Nazgul attack Crickhollow believing that the Bearer is still there: “At that moment, among the trees nearby, a horn rang out. It rent the night like fire on a hilltop. AWAKE! FEAR! FIRE! FOES! AWAKE!”[A Knife in the Dark: FOTR/LOTR] so the hobbits are certainly prepared to take action when they are threatened. Then, we must also remember, that hobbits living closer to the borders are very different. They have locks on their houses and keep (in some cases) large, ferocious dogs. Several families including the Tooks and the Brandybucks are well known for their warrior past.

Given the foregoing I believe it is wrong to consider that the Shire would be a “pushover” unless its residents were ranged against a formidable and well trained foe. But are the “ruffians” such folk? No. To begin with, Saruman had no troops to spare for the north. Instead he sent spies who traveled with the many men being displaced by war in the south. The hobbits meet one such in the Prancing Pony: “One of the travelers, a squint-eyed ill favored fellow, was foretelling that more and more people would be coming north in the near future. ‘If room isn’t found for them, they’ll find it for themselves. They’ve a right to live, same as other folk,’ he said loudly.” [At the Sign of the Prancing Pony: FOTR/LOTR]The fellow is certainly from Saruman, and merely another example of his “h(orc)ticulture”.

To insure that the hobbits are unable to leave Bree unnoted, the horses and ponies at the inn are “stolen” and the innkeeper has to secure one pack animal for the use of the hobbits and their guide. However: “It turned out later that only one horse had been actually stolen.” [A Knife in the Dark: FOTR/LOTR] We learn more about the affair thereafter: “And he (Butterbur) had other troubles. For there was a great commotion as soon as the remaining guests were astir and heard news of the raid on the inn. The southern travelers had lost several horses and blamed the innkeeper loudly, until it became known that one of their own number had also disappeared in the night, none other than Bill Ferny’s squint-eyed companion. Suspicion fell on him at once. ‘If you pick up with a horse-thief, and bring him to my house,’ said Butterbur angrily, ‘you ought to pay for all the damage yourselves and not come shouting at me. Go and ask Ferny where your friend is!’ But it appeared that he was nobody’s friend, and nobody could recollect when he had joined their party. [A Knife in the Dark: FOTR/LOTR] The answer to the problem (and the source of the rest of the ruffians) is solved shortly thereafter: But as they drew near to the further gate, Frodo saw a dark ill-kept house behind a thick hedge: the last house in the village. In one of the windows he caught a glimpse of a sallow face with sly, slanting eye; but it vanished at once. “So that’s where that southerner is hiding!’ he thought. ‘He looks more than half like a goblin.’ A Knife in the Dark: FOTR/LOTR. In Scouring, there is no mention of the men being anything other than ordinary men except in the final battle that ends the “war”: “Merry himself slew the leader, a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc.” Scouring of the Shire: ROTK/LOTR

Therefore, if Tolkien uses a word like “ruffian” which means hooligan or thug rather than a word like warrior or soldier, we must assume that the vast majority of those who would have been involved in an attempt upon the Shire would not have been trained soldiery, but riff raff, mostly from the south, but also some of the less pleasant Bree-landers like Bill Ferny. Now what do such human trash have in common? First, such people are usually bullies and cowards. They tend to pick on people smaller in size and number than themselves. And while the hobbits would appear to be easy pickings, bullies, once faced, seldom continue their assault. They may bluster and bluff, but against a determined (and numerous) adversary, the chances are they would have looked for easier pickings.

Secondly, they are hardly likely to lend themselves to an enterprise which has small chance of profit. After all, what did the Shire offer in the way of valuables, gold etc. to entice such outlaws? No, these were the type of people who would attack isolated farm houses and then disappear to inflict harm someplace else. They were hardly likely to come together and a large and cohesive group, taking orders from a superior and marking time that could be better spent in outlawry – unless there was the promise of some later benefit that would make such uncharacteristic activities worth their while. And, frankly, the only way that would be possible is if Saruman has promised to come north and reward their efforts! If there is no promise of his coming or if he simply doesn’t respond because he’s been killed or remains in captivity, one simply cannot imagine that the “ruffians” – lead by a handful of Saruman’s men(?) – would attempt or succeed in an attack upon the Shire.

Therefore, I would argue that had Saruman made no promise of an appearance in the Shire or had all contact with him been lost (upon his death), the alliance between his few followers and the number of lawless men who abounded in that area during the upheaval of the War would simply not have been feasible or had it commenced, would soon have ceased. And without that alliance, smaller groups attempting to invade the Shire (and there would be no reason to do that in any event), would have been easily turned back by the increased vigilance of the Shire folk. Therefore, it is quite probable that Frodo and the others would have returned to a Shire not much different than the one they had left the year before.

[Elennainie]

Team A shakes hands with and wishes a good debate to Team B.

Post for Team A

If Saruman had not come to the Shire after the destruction of Isengarde, the situation would have been much the same as described in the “Scouring of Shire.

1. Ruinous changes had already happened in the Shire before Saruman came after the destruction of Isengarde. Thus, Saruman’s presence was not necessary for the situation in the Shire to be a ruinous one. Food and leaf was already in short supply and Men had already invaded the Shire before Sar. came. Foul buildings were being erected and trees had been felled. There was neither pipeweed nor beer for the Hobbits, the inns were closed, the Rules had been instated, and the remaining food was of poor quality.
It all began with Pimple, as we call him,' said Farmer Cotton; 'and it all began as soon as you'd gone off, Mr. Frodo. He'd funny ideas, had Pimple. Seems he wanted to own everything himslef, and then order other folk about. It soon came out that he already did own a sight more than was good for him; and he was always grabbing more...he began sending away loads of stuff, not only leaf... Things began to get short, and winter coming on, too. Folk got angry, but he had his answer. A lot of Men, ruffians mostly, came with great wagons, some to carry off the goods south-away, and others to stay. And more came. And before we knew where we were, they were planted her and there all over the Shire, and were felling trees and digging and building themselves sheds and houses just as they liked.
So things went from bad to worse. There wasn't no smoke left, save for the Men, the Chief didn't hold with beer, saave for his Men, and closed all the inns; and everything except Rules got shorter and shorter...

2. The Men and Lotho could have done much of the damage to the Shire on their own, without Saruman’s direct presence.

a. They had the incentive: The Men had incentive to stay in the Shire and make pests of themselves even without Saruman, because the Shire was a land of plenty; a “fat little country”, as one of the Men called it. It could be, and was in fact, exploited for its leaf and its food and its labor (getting the shiriffs to do the dirty work, getting the hobbits to harvest the crops). Lotho also had the incentive to oppress the other hobbits. He wanted to own everything and give orders to everyone else. Also, Lotho was the Men's original leader. They were the "Chief's Men".

"But that won't stop us living in this fat little country where you have lazed long enough.'
He'd funny ideas, had Pimple. Seems he wanted to own everything himself, and then order other folk about. It soon came out that he already did own a sight more than was good for him; and he was always grabbing more

b. They had the means to do so: they were physically stronger and bigger than the hobbits, they were accustomed to ruthless ways (called "ruffians"), while the hobbits were not, and they had the numbers (50 men, according to Cotton). Even when confronted, they were able to suppress the rebellious hobbit by seizing the offender and placing him in jail. They were also organized enough to write up rules and disseminate them, and to coordinate their efforts, as shown by their ability to round up offenders.
‘If we all got angry together something might be done. But it’s these Men, Sam, the Chief’s Men. He sends them round everywhere, and if any of us small folk stand up for our rights, they drag him off to the Lockholes.”

3. Since the topic of this debate is one of conjecture, we may conjecture that it is possible that another leader could have come to the Shire and directed the evil Men in the scouring of the Shire. For instance, this leader could have been Wormtongue. I do not, however, grant the premise that the Men needed a leader for much of the evil done in the Shire. This has yet to be proven. If, though, a leader would have been needed to direct the Men in the things Saruman himself directed, namely the burning of houses, the killing, and the fouling of the water, another leader may have directed these things. Anyone can decide to be cruel and ruin a people's homeland. Incentive could just be plain meanspiritedness.

4. Saruman, if not killed at Isengarde (topic of debate does not specify this) could have directed the destruction from outside the Shire. Do not forget the power of Saruman’s voice! His voice remained with those it conquered, even if he was no longer present, always urging them and in this way influencing their thoughts.
...but for those whom it (his voice) conquered the spell endured when they were far away, and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them.” (TT “The Voice of Saruman”)
Moreover, he could have gone to a place nearby, at Bree or some other place, and had messengers going to and from the Shire.

Thus, Saruman's direct physical presence in the Shire was not necessary for the situation to have been much the same as described in the "Scouring of the Shire".

All quotes are from the "Scouring of the Shire" chapter in RotK unless otherwise noted

[Mrs. Maggott]

A lot of Men, ruffians mostly, came with great wagons, some to carry off the goods south-away, and others to stay. And more came. And before we knew where we were, they were planted her and there all over the Shire, and were felling trees and digging and building themselves sheds and houses just as they liked. Scouring of the Shire/LOTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "traffic" only went on as long as Saruman required and/or desired it. The "great wagons" came from the south and it was to the south they returned with their goods. However, if that "life line" had been broken, then would the likes of the ruffians who afflicted the Shire have remained - or remained in sufficient numbers to inflict the damage that they in fact did? No doubt there would have been those desirous of living at their ease, but without the direct oversight of Saruman - however distant - one must suspect that such creatures would have looked around for a more profitable or a less risky enterprise.

To begin with, had Saruman died, all payments for such goods and those who trafficked in them, would have ceased. Subsequently, any desire to continue "the trade" would likewise have ceased. Who else, after all, was in a position at that time in the south or anywhere else to "buy" the goods being taken from the Shire? No one. And once the "conglomerate" began to disperse for lack of a profitable enterprise - the strong ones to find better pickings and the weaker ones to find something less problematic - the Shire would pretty much have returned to "normal" fairly quickly.

Finally, the term "normal" is itself subjective. Once the ruffians had left or been evicted, there still might have been some period of adjustment, but I have no doubt that the hobbits would have taken whatever steps were necessary to return the Shire to relative normality at the earliest possible moment.

[Gil-Galad]

I see Elennainie has started the debate for our group,so I would like to write some things.
What I'll write first is from:Homeward Bound.

"...And the inside folks,they stay at home mostly and keep their dooor barred.It all comes of the newcomers and that began coming up the Greenway last year,as you may remember;but more came later.Some were just poor bodies running away from trouble;but most were bad men,full of thievery and......."
Butterbur says some things about Bree that I think are the same for the Shire.The reason for the coming of "bad men" is not Saruman,but the shadow.I think that no matter whether Saruman is there or not they will come because the shadow os coming from East.That will influence on Shire folk's life ,cause these bad people will try too to order the hobbits and steal from them everything.That will be so because "bad men" will realize they can dominate over all hobbits.

"Wolves were howling round the fences last year winter.And there's dark shapes in the woods,dreadful things that it makes the blood run cold to think of it.It's been very disturbing,if you understand me..."

Butterbur speaks about "dreadful things" and creatures,but why?Are they result of Saruman's coming?I do not think so.They are result of Sauron's actions.All creatures from the dark feel the rise of the shadow and that it summons them to go out of their hides.Their presence in the Shire and Bree definitely will change hobbits' life.

"Even in the Shire there are some as like minding other folk's business and talking by.And there's worse than that:there's a few as do spy-work for the Chief and his Men

We can see that some hobbits are corrupted or at least not so good.That is a problem of the hobbit society and even if Saruman wasn't there they would have the same problems.Some of the hobbits would co-operate with the newcomers because they want more money,power etc. and the same things would happen.


That is what I think we should mention.I think that Saruman was just the person who has the chance to be there at the right moment.If it wasn't he,someone else would do the same things as him or nearly the same.

[Finduilas]

'Good, good!' cried Farmer Cotton. 'So it's begun at last! I've been itching for trouble all this year, but folks wouldn't help. And I've had the wife and Rosie to think of. These ruffians don't stick at nothing. But come on now, lads! Bywater is up! We must be in it!'

All very bad. But since Sharkey came it's been plain ruination.'

It is said that people indeed 'wanted' to rise up but they were afraid of ...Sharkey or of Saruman. So if he hadn't come they would have banished the Brigands. After all, finally they succeeded in banishing Saruman and his band.Moreover, the bandits had an 'unorganized system'.

Before Yule not a brick was left standing of the new Shirriff-houses or of anything that had been built by 'Sharkey's Men'

The damages of only the bandits would have been smaller and easily repaired.
Moreover,
The trees were the worst loss and damage, for at Sharkey's bidding they had been cut down recklessly far and wide over the Shire;
trees would have been more.Recouping the losses would have been easier and would have taken less time. In addition, Galadriel's gift would have remain unused or at least a part of it. If Saruman hadn't come the situation would have got better 'immediately' (paralleled to the situation when he came) and life would have improved to as normal as hobbit life can be.

[Eöl]

Post For Team A:
The situation would have been the same as in “The Scouring Of The Shire”, because of the easy pickings the ruffians could make off the hobbits. As Mrs. Maggott said, they needed a “trade” of pipeweed, crops etc. But why would they need to make a profit if they could easily live off the crops and any money the hobbits might have?

Also, there actually was leadership involved; i.e. hobbits like Ted Sandyman, and other Shiriffs like Robin Smallburrow, who, even though in it against their will, still went along with the ruffians. Then there is the quote about the ruffian that Merry slew “Merry himself slew the leader, a great squint-eyed brute like a huge orc.” Obviously the ruffians had some sort of leadership set up within their own group, other than Saruman.

Originally posted by Finduilas - Before Yule not a brick was left standing of the new Shirriff-houses or of anything that had been built by 'Sharkey's Men'

This was not due to shoddy construction, but to a team effort on the part of the Shirefolk. Look at the lines right before this quote.

Hobbits can work like bees when the mood and the need comes on them. Now there were thousands of willing hands of all ages, from the small but nimble ones of the hobbit lads and lasses to the well-worn and horny ones of the gaffers and gammers.

[Finduilas]

This was not due to shoddy construction, but to a team effort on the part of the Shirefolk. Look at the lines right before this quote.

That's what I mean. Since the hobbits were able to recover the damages, they would have found it easier to recover the damages of only the brigands. And life would have easier become as normal as hobbit life.

Butterbur says some things about Bree that I think are the same for the Shire.The reason for the coming of "bad men" is not Saruman,but the shadow.I think that no matter whether Saruman is there or not they will come because the shadow os coming from East.That will influence on Shire folk's life ,cause these bad people will try too to order the hobbits and steal from them everything.That will be so because "bad men" will realize they can dominate over all hobbits.

Bad men might come because of the Shadow. However, they would have not been as organized as when they are under the comand of Saruman. In addition, I'd say that they would have not been able to 'dominate over all hobbits'. When the members of the Fellowship returns they realize that some hobbits have and still want to rais revolt. However, the strict rules and organization had stopped them.

We can see that some hobbits are corrupted or at least not so good.That is a problem of the hobbit society and even if Saruman wasn't there they would have the same problems.Some of the hobbits would co-operate with the newcomers because they want more money,power etc. and the same things would happen.

Don't forget that Saruman has the power to enchant. He's not just 'someone else', but an Istar. Those hobbits would probably never think of corruption and money untill Saruman comes.
It's not hobbits' problem but power stronger than them which can not be destroyed by a few hobbits but by the entire Shire.

[Melian]

Post for Team A:

The situation in the Shire would have been much as it is described in the chapter, because:

1.Of the nature of the Hobbit race. Let's admit, Hobbits were one of the most ignorant (in terms of awareness of what was going on in the wide world) people of Middle-earth. Hence, they didn't accept evil in its whole, but only its local influence. For example, they would be much more grieved that trees were being destroyed than that the time of Elves was ending. In this way, Hobbits were unable to resist to that evil either. They didn't know how to protect themselves, why to do so and when. They were a weak race, remote in its peaceful agriculture and thus doomed to fall.
World was changing. Dramatically. And races like this were to vanish or obey. The dark force, with or without Saruman, would have affected the Shire. And the folk there was susceptible enough...to any villain's influence. Their only sigh of resistence was their natural self-defence reaction, prompted however by the direct negative impact on crops, plants etc. Hobbits were not to last. Just like Men and Dwarves, weaker than Elves, should fall first. The defenceless, by law of nature, are taken over by the stronger.

2.Of the nature of Saruman's skills. I don't believe that it was Saruman's uniqueness and super influence that caused the Shire to change. At that point, he had been discarded by the Dark Lord, and surely those great powers had diminished. Moreover, as I stated in 1.,you don't need supernatural charm to make Hobbits obey you. Therefore, I think that Saruman excersiced some cheap tricks in the Shire, which, by no means is evidence for his crucial interference. A Nazgul, for example,or any other servant of the dark, could have done the same job. Driven by personal ravenge,maybe, Saruman just happened to be there, but even if he hadn't emerged in the Shire, there were many others apt to it.

My conclusion: Sauron's influence on the world was inevitable. It had many faces and it was inevitable. The Shirefolk suffered that change, too, but not because Saruman's deeds in specific. The Hobbits were, as a weak race, meant to give way.

[Eöl]

That's what I mean. Since the hobbits were able to recover the damages, they would have found it easier to recover the damages of only the brigands. And life would have easier become as normal as hobbit life.

That's not exactly what I meant. The ruffians were obviously organized enough to create well constructed buildings. But, the hobbits simply needed encouraging to tear them down. Even if Saruman hadn't been there, the ruffians still would have created "factories" in order to increase their crop yield and profit, because they were most likely greedy folk. The reason they were torn down so fast was not because the bandits built them poorly, it was because the hobbits wanted to restore normal life quickly. The buildings still would have come down just as fast even without Saruman's presence in the Shire previously.

[Mrs. Maggott]

In the workbook, we debaters have been encouraged to post, therefore I am doing so now. If I am posting "out of order", I apologize, but after reading through some of the later posts, I find it difficult to determine just exactly which side has posted last.

The "crux" of this matter is not so much Saruman, but the type of men who were in the Shire acting on his behalf. It is fairly obvious that if they were not only Saruman's agentsbut well organized and powerful in and of themselves, then the Wizard's presence was far less essential to the duration of their stay in the Shire or to the damage that they inflicted. It is my contention that they with the exception of a few "leaders", the majority of those afflicting the Shire were not well organized. Furthermore, they were not even particularly warlike or courageous as many of them lay down their arms and surrendered or fled at the first sign of resistance by their smaller adversaries. This is hardly the action of a doubty fighter and still less of an organized group of doubty fighters. They were hooligans, ruffians, a "mob" who acted in vague concert under the pressure of stronger minds and wills. When that pressure was no more, they were more than likely to take to their heels than to resist.

Furthermore, the question of whether everything would have been "the same" had Saruman not been a continuing - and eventually present - factor, must take into consideration that nothing in Middle-earth was "the same" after the War of the Ring. There were very few places (except perhaps Rivendell, Lorien and the Havens, protected as they were by the Elven Rings or the Old Forest and T. B. protected as they were by their sheer unimportance) that were "unaffected". The hobbits were already under a sort of siege as mentioned early in LOTR when Sam notes that the bounders were turning back all sorts of strange folk who were trying to enter the Shire.

It would seem more likely that had contact with Saruman been lost, those folk who had entered the Shire on his behalf in the process of commerce with some willing Shirefolk (the Sackville-Bagginses to be more precise) would no longer have had a reason to continue that commerce and either returned to the south or sought a more productive site for their depredations. By this time, it would have been obvious to them that the Shire possessed none of the assets that would draw the attention of such men. Hobbits had no interest in gold or treasure (the usual magnet for such interests). Even their relative lack of want in time of social chaos was not so great as to make them a target of such an attack. The simple fact is that Saruman's agents - and the ruffians they gathered to help enforce their activities - were present in the Shire solely at the instruction of their Master. If they had lost contact with him or knew that he was no longer 'in charge', one must doubt that they would have 'stayed the course' and remained in the Shire.

Saruman wanted his petty revenge on those who had thwarted his plans. Indeed so determined was he to have it that he journeyed himself to the Shire to be present when his tormentors returned. It is this focus of malicious intent by a still powerful being that motivated the men acting on his behalf to remain in the Shire and, in turn, motivated those whom they had gathered to assist them to do so as well. Without this guiding spirit of malice, there was simply nothing in the Shire that would have tempted the few leaders to remain and, of course, without them, the "ruffians" would have soon disbursed and disappeared the way Bill Ferny did when he was challenged. Would there have been "damage"? Certainly. Would it have been anywhere near as great had Saruman died or otherwise been removed as a motivating factor? No it would not.