Rebels at the 3rd kinslaying

[Elemmírë]

If anyone reading or wanting to get involved doesn't have a copy of the Silm at hand, I'll put the passage in question here:

Now when first the tidings came to Maedhros that Elwing yet lived, and dwelt in possession of the Silmaril by the mouths of Sirion, he repenting of the deeds in Doriath withheld his hand. But in time the knowledge of their oath unfulfilled returned to torment him and his brothers, and gathering from their wandering hunting-paths they sent messages to the Havens of friendship and yet of stern demand. Then Elwing and the people of Sirion would not yield the jewel which Beren had won and Luthien had worn, and for which Dior the fair was slain; and least of all while Earendil their lord was on the sea, for it seemed to them that in the Silmaril lay the healing and their ships. And so there came to pass the last and cruellest of the slayings of Elf by Elf; and that was the third of the great wrongs achieved by the accursed oath.

I would personally interpret it the way that Artanis does.

[Durin1]

Another perspective that comes to mind is whether Dior should have yielded the Silmaril in the first place, knowing how it had ensnared Thingol. Fair enough, his parents had gone through great suffering in regaining the Silmaril, but he must have known about the Oath that had been sworn would only bring him grief?

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by Artanis

Findegil, I know you are working with the Ruin of Doriath in the Downs, and now you are referring to another version than that which is given in the published Silmarillion, aren't you? Which version are you holding to, where Dior had a talk with Curufin?

Just to answer my own question. Tale of the Nauglafring, Book of Lost Tales 2. I should have guessed. Grazie Maedhros.

[Findegil]

Sorry for such a late response. You have clearly found the right version of the story, were Curufin was the messager. But this was not the real point. It was just a very curious way to mention the bargain before the attack.

But my main point is also blown away. That is the outcome, if you work to much out your memory, with out checking the sources! The phrase provide by Elemmire is just one sentence to short. What follows emidiatly in The Silmarillion; Quenta Silmarillion; chapter 24: Of the Voyage of Eärendil is:

For the sons of Fëanor that yet lived came down suddenly upon the exiles of Gondolin and the remnant of Doriath, and destroyed them. ...

These "suddenly" was it that produced the impression of an unexpected attack. But by checking the sources - late as it is now - I found that exactly this "suddenly" is an editorial addition of Christopher Tolkien.

Thus we are back to the topic - question "Why was the third kinslaying more bad than the second one?" without any good answer.

Lets try a second gues - this time a bit more true to the sources: In the case of Doriath the military forces on both sides were a bit more equal. In The History of Middle-Earth; volume 2: The Book of Lost Tales 2; chapter IV: The Tale of the Nauglafring it is even said:

Yet in the end were the sons of Feanor masters of the field of slain, ...

Now at Sirions mouth the Fëanorians did win the battle even with some of their forces fighting against them and some not taking part in the action. Thus Elwing against the Fëanorians was more like David against Goliath, but here with the expacted outcome and not the biblical.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Sorry for such a late response.

Keine Entschuldigung notwendig, Shreiber des Königs!

Originally Posted by Findegil

You have clearly found the right version of the story, were Curufin was the messager. But this was not the real point. It was just a very curious way to mention the bargain before the attack.

I did get your point, I just wanted to read that passage about Curufin.

Originally Posted by Findegil

But by checking the sources - late as it is now - I found that exactly this "suddenly" is an editorial addition of Christopher Tolkien.

I'm glad to hear that the word "suddenly" was added by CRT, it makes much more sense.

Originally Posted by Findegil

Lets try a second gues - this time a bit more true to the sources: In the case of Doriath the military forces on both sides were a bit more equal. In The History of Middle-Earth; volume 2: The Book of Lost Tales 2; chapter IV: The Tale of the Nauglafring it is even said: Now at Sirions mouth the Fëanorians did win the battle even with some of their forces fighting against them and some not taking part in the action. Thus Elwing against the Fëanorians was more like David against Goliath, but here with the expacted outcome and not the biblical.

OK, so we may accept as a fact that the Fëanorean host outnumbered the forces of Elwing's people. But does that make the attack more cruel? Not necessarily I think. I'd say it was the Oath that was cruel, it was the Oath that drove Maedhros, Maglor and Amrod to the attack at Sirion. It would be cruel if the Fëanoreans had slain people who did not oppose them, such as children and those who fled from the battle, but there is no evidence that they did so, I think.

[Findegil]

Well, I am not sure if their is no difference, when the forces are unequal. But I will not give any example for such things out of real history since they will risk an off topic discussion.

So, Artanis, since you don't find my reasoning fitting would you mind to give you interpretation why the third kinslaying was call the cruellest?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by Findegil

So, Artanis, since you don't find my reasoning fitting would you mind to give you interpretation why the third kinslaying was call the cruellest?

Well, on the basis of the information that we have, I'm afraid I do not agree with the narrator that the 3rd kinslaying was the cruellest. I said in one of my previous posts that if one was more cruel that the other of Doriath and Sirion, then I would say Doriath, because it was the first deliberate attack of one Elven host on another, and something that at least Celegorm and Curufin wanted to happen. While the attack on the havens was something Maedhros wanted to avoid, but was driven to by the Oath.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Artanis

Well, on the basis of the information that we have, I'm afraid I do not agree with the narrator that the 3rd kinslaying was the cruellest. I said in one of my previous posts that if one was more cruel that the other of Doriath and Sirion, then I would say Doriath, because it was the first deliberate attack of one Elven host on another, and something that at least Celegorm and Curufin wanted to happen. While the attack on the havens was something Maedhros wanted to avoid, but was driven to by the Oath.

I agree. Before the Fifth Battle Celegorm and Curufin open said that they would slay Thingol and ruin Doriath if Thingol did not hand over the Silmaril. Although Thingol had alreayy been killed by the NAuglim they still kept to the second part of what they said.

[Elemmírë]

Only one explanation I can think of for why the 3rd could be considered the cruellest... and I have to admit the logic might be faulty...

Let's look at it from the PoV of the victims. Part of them are from Gondolin, which has just been destroyed by Morgoth. At least the majority of the rest are from Doriath, which was obviously destroyed by the Fëanorians. All of them have had to flee for their lives recently, and probably have next to nothing as it is...

And then the Sons of Fëanor come in and finish the job.

I do not think that the act of kinslaying is more or less cruel in any case, but one could argue the circumstances under which it occurred during the third were the cruellest.

Or so it seems to me.

[Valandil]

I just thought it was kinda this:

After ALL that they had been through, all they had suffered from Morgoth, from betrayals, and earlier repercussions from The Oath, after all the pain, the harm, the 'blood, sweat and tears' that were shed... and how both the Noldor and Sindar had been so greatly decimated thereby... all their great kingdoms gone, all their great kings dead...

That they would STILL raise their hands against one another and destroy each other yet again...

THAT was why I thought it was so cruel.

[Elemmírë]

That works too!

Though... does that make it cruel or pointless?

I think we agree on the same idea though: it wasn't what was done at Sirion that was any crueller than in Doriath or Alqualondë, but simply the fact that it was done.

[Blackheart]

One might expect that the firstborn would have learned after two times that kinslayings were fruitless, pointless, stupid...

The fact that some of the Feanorians rebelled against their lords showed that they did understand.

One might expect that Maedhros at the very least suspected that this was true, even if some of his more clueless brothers did not.

To go ahead and commit the attrocity, even though you know it to be wrong in your heart, because you are driven by an oath you were dragged into by your father (What was he going to do, tell his father you're nuts?)....

That's pretty cruel. And not just for the ones being murdered...

The oath had taken on a life of it's own. The doom of the Noldor, the prophecy and curse of Mandos, there was a lot of... destiny and fate behind it.

Much like the curse on the children of Hurin, things were going to turn out bad, no matter how you tried to twist out from under it.

[Beor]

Okay, I know I am jumping in and I did skim the thread, so if this has already been said, then I suppose I will have to do a better job next time, but I do agree with Blackheart in that if you dont agree with something that is obviously morally wrong, then it is ridiculous to do it. If I tell my soldiers to gun down a row of civilians I expect them to have the courage not to do it and to turn me in to JAG or whoever. There is no reason that all the people of Feanor need to be held to the oath as well as him and his sons, unless I missed that part.

[Minielin]

Originally Posted by Beor

There is no reason that all the people of Feanor need to be held to the oath as well as him and his sons, unless I missed that part.

Good point...

[Wayfarer]

I thought that all the people of Feanor got up and swore the oath with him and his sons, you know, in the whole 'moved by his speaking' thing.

[Minielin]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I thought that all the people of Feanor got up and swore the oath with him and his sons, you know, in the whole 'moved by his speaking' thing.

No, only Feanor and his sons swore the oath... the others just followed them out of Valinor.

[Findegil]

I will give the question of the cruellest kinslaying an other go:
We had already established that the first was something like rush into some action with out thought. There for only the second and third qualified for the cruellest.
One of the differences is that the second was against some people with which the Feanorians had never been on friendly terms. Two times before it had been near to a crossing of swords between Doriath and at least some of the Feanorians: When Thingol received the message of Celegrom that he had captured Luthien and would marry her, Thingol already prepared for a war, and when Celegrom and Curufin road to the Nirnaeth they vote to slay Thingol if, they were victorious and he would not give them the Silmaril. Thus the relations between Doriath and the Feanorians had ever been cold and unfriendly. But with the Gondolindrim which builded a big part of the Peoples of the Havens of Sirion the terms had been friendly. The Feanorians and the Gondolindrim were from the same folk (Noldor) and fought side by side in two battles against Morgoth. Thus the first and the second kinslaying were exactly that a kinslaying in literary sense. The second was the more cruel because it was a premeditated war. But third was a kind of fratricide and therefore it was the cruellest of all the three kinslayings.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Artanis]

The relations between Doriath and the Noldor, especially the Feanoreans, had been somewhat unfriendly even from the day the Noldor landed in Middle-Earth, true enough.

I have been thinking about Celebrimbor, I assume that he escaped from the ruin of Nargothrond and was with Gil-Galad and CÃ*rdan at Balar. Did he go with Gil-Galad to aid the people of Sirion? Celebrimbor once rejected his father, but would he have fought against his own uncles?

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Artanis

The relations between Doriath and the Noldor, especially the Feanoreans, had been somewhat unfriendly even from the day the Noldor landed in Middle-Earth, true enough.

I have been thinking about Celebrimbor, I assume that he escaped from the ruin of Nargothrond and was with Gil-Galad and CÃ*rdan at Balar. Did he go with Gil-Galad to aid the people of Sirion? Celebrimbor once rejected his father, but would he have fought against his own uncles?

Now there's a disturbing thought.

I would have to say no, unless it's mentioned somewhere and I haven't read it. Basically my reasoning is that a Fëanorian turning on his kin to that extent would have to have been recorded. Battling against his uncles would have been I great deal more... finalising, I assume (I don't think I can speak English today ), than simply rejecting Curufin.

I don't see how something like that could have been left unrecorded.

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I don't see how something like that could have been left unrecorded.

Well, the host of Gil-Galad came too late to actually be of any help.

I guess you could turn the question around too and ask, if Gil-Galad's people had held a Silmaril, would Maedhros, Maglor and Amrod have attacked them knowing that Celebrimbor was there? I have to say I think they would, unfortunately.