Explain the events of LORD OF THE RINGS with no (or minimal) supernatural elements

Deconstruct the whole Lord of the Rings as embellished legend? Lordy! Ok, here goes:

The Hobbit: Some dwarves[sup]1[/sup] recruit an inhabitant of the Shire, a Hobbit[sup]2[/sup] named Bilbo Baggins, at the behest of Gandalf[sup]3[/sup] on a quest to recover ancient treasure from the now abandoned ancestral home of the dwarves, guarded by the dragon Smaug[sup]4[/sup]. Gandalf safeguards the party from trolls, orcs and wargs[sup]5[/sup], and during a side adventure Bilbo obtains possession of a “magic ring”[sup]6[/sup]. Gandalf sees the party as far as the entrance to Mirkwood[sup]7[/sup]. After a long and harrying trip, the party is briefly detained by a tribe of elves (see main article “Lord of the Rings”) before arriving at Laketown, the nearest settlement to the Lonely Mountain. The party sneak into the mountain via a secret entrance, and Bilbo uses the ring to avoid the gaze of Smaug.[sup]8[/sup]. But the theft of a single item of treasure rouses Smaug, trapping the adventurers and prompting an attack on Laketown. Smaug is slain by a hero who has been told the dragon’s secret weakness[sup]9[/sup], ending the threat, but prompting a near war over division of the spoils, which is only averted when the humans and dwarves unite to fend off an attack of orcs seeking the treasure for themselves.[sup]10[/sup]. Bilbo survives and returns to his home with as much treasure as he can pack, plus the magic ring, and lives most of the rest of his life in contented peace, having had his fill of adventure.

[sup]1[/sup].Scholars are divided over whether the “Dwarves” in the accounts are merely a tribe of humans who perhaps averaged somewhat shorter than the surrounding tribes, or whether they were a guild or adoptive tribe of “little people”. The latter is supported by the claim that the dwarves were primarily miners and tunnelers, whose short stature aided them in their livelihood. It’s now considered extremely unlikely that dwarfism could have become established as a hereditary trait in an isolated population, and of course the idea that the “Dwarves” were a completely non-human race of anthropoids is too incredible for serious consideration.

[sup]2[/sup].Roughly the same arguments as footnote 1. Since Dwarves and Hobbits are always spoken of as two different peoples, the most likely explanation is that the tale combines two entirely separate myths of diminutive non-humans.

[sup]3[/sup].Perhaps the most ambiguous character of the entire “Red Book” tradition. His almost incidental appearance in The Hobbit contrasts sharply with his central role in the larger account of the War of the Ring. Scholars now feel confident that “Gandalf” was a title rather than a personal name, bestowed upon a certain office within the Order of Wizards. This is supported by the great length of time (the majority of Bilbo’s life) between the events of the two accounts.

[sup]4[/sup]The identity of “Smaug” is still a contentious issue. There seems to be no plausible way to account for the rest of the tradition without supposing that some real opponent occupied the Lonely Mountain. His identification as a “dragon” suggests he was some sort of powerful and ruthless warlord, (e.g., “Vlad Dracula”), possibly a brigand who seized the mountain and drove away the former inhabitants. His brief mention in LotR establishes a kinship with other “dragons”, but the paucity of sources means a positive identification may elude scholars indefinitely.

[sup]5[/sup]These parts of the history are self-evidently embellishments drawn from folktales, and are meant to be interpreted allegorically. The “trolls” represent the fears associated with darkness (the light of day reveals they were only suggestively shaped rocks), the orcs are discussed in the main article, and the “wargs” are simply a variation on the evil wolf/ werewolf tradition, from a time in which wolves were a real threat to the livestock of the peasantry. Some speculation exists over whether the Wargs were meant to represent a “wolf tribe”, who threatened travelers but who were kept away by the “bear tribe” of Beorn.

[sup]6[/sup]It’s noteworthy that in this account the “magic” ring is not even identified as the One Ring so central to the War of the Ring tradition. The main reason for supposing it is even the same article of jewelry (aside from the possibly conflated account in LotR) is the supposed power it gives Bilbo in his confrontation with Smaug, (see footnote 8).

[sup]7[/sup]“Mirkwood” is now believed to have been an actual forested area, exaggerated in menace in the account, but certainly dense, uninhabited and arduous to journey through in primitive times. The “Black Forest” of medieval Germany is a more familiar example.

[sup]8[/sup]The mythos of the One Ring is treated more fully in the Lord of the Rings article, but briefly it now is considered to have been a badge and symbol of royalty, one renowned enough to bestow if not legitimacy than a strong claim to status by it’s wearer. In this context, the rest of the account of Bilbo’s meeting with Smaug is clear enough: rather than being killed on sight as a mere thief, Bilbo uses the “power of the ring” to disguise himself as a royal heir, claiming a right of royalty sufficient that even a suspicious, hostile Smaug dare not kill him outright.

[sup]9[/sup]Given the disjoint between this pasage and the rest of the history, many believe it is a conflation of two different accounts. The entire confrontation between Bilbo and his party and Smaug is rendered almost moot. Some scholars claim however that the two incidents are not unrelated; possibly a claim of hereditary kingship by Bilbo would have provoked a preemptive assault upon the Laketown settlement, in which the “dragon” tyrant was killed, especially if the account that Bilbo managed to steal the prime royal jewel of the mountain is accurate.

[sup]10[/sup]Possibly the least altered section of the history. Certainly a power vacuum following the death of the Dragon tyrant would have precipitated a scramble for power. It seems implausible however that the combatants were literally fighting over a horde of treasure. More likely the struggle was over possession of the mountain itself and the long-term mineral riches it held.
Oh good grief, it took me this long just to deconstruct The Hobbit? I could spend days on the Lord of the Rings.

I am cromulent. Booya! Made my weekend! :cool:

In real life, especially back in the days of sword fighting, there just isn’t going to be some single item that will singlehandedly win or lose a war for you.

So I’d personally submit that the LOTR books are based on two separate sources. The first of these is a hagiography of Aragorn (assuming that this name is correct) and the latter is a purely fictional story, possibly taken from earlier legends.

The advantage of including the “ring story” is that the hobbits and the linear quest to deliver the item to its destruction gives us a tale of average, unimportant people who we can identify with. We care about them and their mission, and the straightforwardness of that mission in return grants us a single storyline to keep us interested in all the random wars and politics that in real life probably went on for upwards of a decade or more and would be uninteresting and difficult to present in a fluid manner.

That someone chose to incorporate elements that would entice the average person to care about the story is probably an indication of a populist interest on the part of the author. The choice of an ancient hero who had brought several kingdoms together into a single empire is, for instance, possibly an indication that the power of the empire had begun to be overtaken by a middleclass nobility. LOTR in this case would have been used to make the common man feel a kinship with the central, imperial power–i.e. the descendants of Aragorn–and stand against the nobility to reinstate the emperor as the supreme force in the land.

But so as to the historical elements, i.e. the story of Aragorn uniting the lands against an invading force… Given the complete demonizing of the invaders, making them be represented as warped, evil monsters; the complete whitewashing of Aragorn and all those near him; and all of the magical and fantasy elements that have been added into the tale–let alone the whole ring story–I think it’s safe to say that without research into archeological findings, it would be foolhardy to bet on any historicity beyond that:

  1. There was a nobleman named Aragorn (or at least who came to be known as “Aragorn” by the time the story was recorded in the LOTR)

  2. He united several kingdoms–possibly through diplomacy, but just as likely through conquest and assassination.

  3. His empire went on to rule most of the land that had formerly been separate kingdoms.

  4. Probably most of the battles detailed in the books do refer to actual turning point battles. How much of the tactics presented is accurate would be difficult to say.

Now wait a Gawdam minute. What happened to Australia and New Zealand? What about those skinny babes hired as lady elves for Lord of the Rings?

And they say Obama lied to get elected…

You’re the second person in two days to complain about me not doing the evil overlord thing. No, actually the third–but the second Doper.

Does anyone else think that’s weird?

You’ve been to that damn shrink again, haven’t you?

We’re talking New Zealand babes here.

The Dwarves and Orcs were two rival tribes who fought for control of the Misty Mountains. Dispite their superior iron weapons (later exaggerated into “mithril”), they were driven out of their ancient homelands by the bronze-age, but far more numerous, Orcs.

The leader of the Orcs was a shaman called the Balrog. He intimidated his enemies with inventions akin to Greek Fire or gunpowder. Like the pirate Blackbeard, he went into battle with burning fuses woven into his hair and beard. The fearsome appearance got exaggerated in later accounts.

The Nazgul were a goon squad similar to the Oprichniki.

In the professor’s painting of Barad-Dur, you can see Mount Doom in the background. Not much furthur than the distance between Vesuvius and Herculanium.