Rebels at the 3rd kinslaying

[Artanis]

The remnants of Fëanor's sons did not have full support from their own people during the attack on the Elven dwellings by Sirion:For the sons of Fëanor that yet lived came down suddenly upon the exiles of Gondolin and the remnant of Doriath, and destroyed them. In that battle some of their people stood aside, and some few rebelled and were slain upon the other part aiding Elwing against their own lords (for such was the sorrow and confusion in the hearts of the Eldar in those days)...So, they probably remembered Doriath too well and decided that enough was enough. But could their rebellion be morally justified? What about the loyalty that they owned their Lords? Was standing aside any better than joining the battle on the other side? What do you think?

Edit: I'll give you a proof of my poor English comprehension and ask a question ... does "slain upon the other part" mean that they were slain by the Fëanoreans or the people of Sirion ... :confused:

Edit2: And what do you make of "the sorrow and confusion in the hearts of the Eldar"?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think to them it would be as they were defending, not attacking.

Didn't the same sort of thing happen in Doriath to?

[Artanis]

Didn't the same sort of thing happen in Doriath to?There was no rebellion at Doriath, but Maedhros repented of the cruel treatment of Dior's sons, Eluréd and ElurÃ*n.

[Sister Golden Hair]

The remnants of Fëanor's sons did not have full support from their own people during the attack on the Elven dwellings by Sirion:So, they probably remembered Doriath too well and decided that enough was enough. But could their rebellion be morally justified? What about the loyalty that they owned their Lords? Was standing aside any better than joining the battle on the other side? What do you think?Well, when it's wrong, loyalty only goes so far. It's like Huan turning against Celegorm.

Edit: I'll give you a proof of my poor English comprehension and ask a question ... does "slain upon the other part" mean that they were slain by the Fëanoreans or the people of Sirion ... :confused:It means that they were slain by their own people, the Feanoreans, I would think.

Edit2: And what do you make of "the sorrow and confusion in the hearts of the Eldar"?I think in the First Age there was very much sorrow and confusion for the Eldar. From the time of the Exile and the rebellion against the Valar, the Noldor were divided. When they returned to Middle-earth, it brought great uneasiness to the Elves of Middle-earth. News of the first Kinslaying for instance, causing a rift between the Noldor and Teleri in Middle-earth. The possession of lands, and who served what lords were all cause for sorrow, anger, confusion and a divided people among the Elves.

[Durin1]

They probably just had enough of the cruel deeds of the Brothers and couldn't justify any longer the need to attack innocent, vulnerable people, catching them pretty much at unawares.

[Artanis]

Well, when it's wrong, loyalty only goes so far. It's like Huan turning against Celegorm.
They probably just had enough of the cruel deeds of the Brothers and couldn't justify any longer the need to attack innocent, vulnerable people, catching them pretty much at unawares.I think they were facing a serious moral dilemma, to go against the will of their own lords, or to be loyal and take part in an attack on their kinsmen for what they felt was an unjust cause. They knew what Maedhros & bros had in mind when they marched towards Sirion's mouth, but disobedience is a serious matter, so they went along and did not take a stand or choose side until the battle was a reality. Those who chose to fight on the Fëanorean side might have been deeply troubled too, but still chose to be loyal to their leaders.

[Attalus]

I think that Durin1 posted what I think: that of all the cruel, ruthless things that the sons of Fëanor committed, this was the cruellest and most senseless. The proper enemy of the Eldar was Morgoth, not their innocent fellow-elves. This, plus the slaying of the rebels by the "loyal" Fëanorists, would be enough to cause sadness and confusion among the Eldar.

[Durin1]

The Feanorians attacked groups of people who had been survivors from the systematic destruction of all the major elvish strongholds by the power of Morgoth. It probably seemed to many of the Feanorians that there was no specific purpose to the attacks, since they were only going to end up as being mere fodder for Morgoth's army: to pick up the winnings from from elves who were busy fighting amongst themselves.

[Pytt]

I think that Durin1 posted what I think: that of all the cruel, ruthless things that the sons of Fëanor committed, this was the cruellest and most senseless. The proper enemy of the Eldar was Morgoth, not their innocent fellow-elves. This, plus the slaying of the rebels by the "loyal" Fëanorists, would be enough to cause sadness and confusion among the Eldar.

I think maybe the burning of the ships on the shores of Beleriand was a pretty cruel thing do to. but in the rest i agree with both of you.

[Elemmírë]

Well, when it's wrong, loyalty only goes so far. It's like Huan turning against Celegorm.

You would bring that up... :p

Celebrimbor too, one could argue...

I have a question: why is the 3rd kinslaying considered worse than the others or the burning of the ships or what have you...? I might be missing something, but I just don't see it...

[Artanis]

I have a question: why is the 3rd kinslaying considered worse than the others or the burning of the ships or what have you...? I might be missing something, but I just don't see it...Who says the 3rd kinslaying was worse than the others? I would agree compared to Alqualonde, because no one planned for that battle to happen. Personally I think The Fëanoréans vs. Dior in Doriath was the worst, it was the first deliberate attack of one Elven host on other Elvish people.

The burning of the ships is another matter, though it was a serious betrayal, Fëanor did not intend to kill anyone by that act (he only ended up killing his own son, by one of the versions of the story). Of course many Elves of Fingolfin's people perished in the Grinding Ice, but Fëanor did not expect them to take that way, he expected them to return to the Valar.

[Elemmírë]

Who says the 3rd kinslaying was worse than the others? I would agree compared to Alqualonde, because no one planned for that battle to happen. Personally I think The Fëanoréans vs. Dior in Doriath was the worst, it was the first deliberate attack of one Elven host on other Elvish people.

Um... it says it here: in of the Voyage of Earendil:

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 interpret "last and cruellest" as worse, but I don't see why it was any more so than the other two... :confused:

The burning of the ships is another matter, though it was a serious betrayal, Fëanor did not intend to kill anyone by that act (he only ended up killing his own son, by one of the versions of the story). Of course many Elves of Fingolfin's people perished in the Grinding Ice, but Fëanor did not expect them to take that way, he expected them to return to the Valar.

Poor Umbarto... (see, I do know Quenya names :p ). You're right though, it is another matter. And Fëanor is simply an idiot... :mad:

[Pytt]

Even if Feanor is an idiot, he is one of Tolkiens greatest characters. and one of the most skilled. but yes, I agree with you, he is not in he best mental sense.. :rolleyes:

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Poor Umbarto... (see, I do know Quenya names :p ). You're right though, it is another matter. And Fëanor is simply an idiot... :mad:
Don't tell BoP! I agree but I agree with Pytt aswell. He was a very complex character and I think Morgoth had a big influence on him. The destruction of Feanor's good guy side could be considered one of his greatest accomplishments.

[Artanis]

The destruction of Feanor's good guy side could be considered one of his greatest accomplishments.Maybe it's my bad English again, but that sounds a little funny! :p

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I'll rephrase.

Maybe destroying the good part of Feanor could be one of Morgoth's greates accomplishments.

That better?

[Artanis]

Sorry T_D, I'm sure it is my bad English comprehension. :)

And sorry everyone for being totally off topic. :o

[Elemmírë]

Don't tell BoP! I agree but I agree with Pytt aswell. He was a very complex character and I think Morgoth had a big influence on him.

A very complex character.

But still an idiot.

Maybe destroying the good part of Feanor could be one of Morgoth's greates accomplishments.

More eloquent... but you've still got a typo in it, TD... :p :D

I know what you mean, though perhaps "worst deeds" would be a better way to put it, well... unless you're an orc.

[Findegil]

Back to the topic: As said before, the first kinslaying at Aqualonde was not planed, and thus it was not as cruel as the last.
The second kinslaying was the first planed war of elves against elves, but it was not unexpected by Dior. He did fight the Feanorians at the eastern border of Doriath, and that does mean he was smart enough to know they would attack him after the not very fruitful talk to Curufin.
The attack on the Havens was unlocked for. If we read the account carefully we can even get the impression that the claim of the Feanorians was not rejected entirely but was postponed until Earendil was back. It is sad that Tolkien never gave a detailed account of the debate of the brothers before the attack on the havens. It would be interesting to know who did initiate that cruellest kinslaying, since the most sinister of the brethren were already dead.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Artanis]

The second kinslaying was the first planed war of elves against elves, but it was not unexpected by Dior. He did fight the Feanorians at the eastern border of Doriath, and that does mean he was smart enough to know they would attack him after the not very fruitful talk to Curufin.The people at the Havens were probably prepared too. 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? If Dior expected the Fëanoreans to attack in Doriath, the refugees from that battle would probably not be taken at unawares by the same Fëanoreans at the Havens.
The attack on the Havens was unlocked for. If we read the account carefully we can even get the impression that the claim of the Feanorians was not rejected entirely but was postponed until Earendil was back.I do not get that impression, and I think the people of Elwing would not give in on anything to Maedhros and his brothers after what had happened in Doriath.

The published Silmarillion says the kinslaying at the Havens came after a period where Maedhros held back and restrained himself, remembering Doriath, but in the end was driven to attack by the oath. In contrast they did not hesitate at all before attacking Dior.
It is sad that Tolkien never gave a detailed account of the debate of the brothers before the attack on the havens. It would be interesting to know who did initiate that cruellest kinslaying, since the most sinister of the brethren were already dead.I would be glad to see an account on such a debate too, detailed or not. :)

[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]

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]

Sorry for such a late response. Keine Entschuldigung notwendig, Shreiber des Königs! :)
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. :)
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.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]

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]

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... :o

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! :p :D :(

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]

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]

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]

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 :p ), than simply rejecting Curufin.

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

[Artanis]

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. :(

[Elemmírë]

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. :(

Maglor and Amrod, at least. :mad: They don't seem to know what family is. :mad:

Erm... sorry... :o

I agree, I think they would have too. :(

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Did all the Fëanorians take part in the second kinslaying or was it just the C's? [/RANDOM QUESTION]

[Elemmírë]

It was all. :(

[Attalus]

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. :(I quite agree. That damned Oath appears to have been able to draw them to any atrocity. Imagine attacking the Host of the Valar, and, getting away with it. Cheek. :p

[Elemmírë]

I quite agree. That damned Oath appears to have been able to draw them to any atrocity. Imagine attacking the Host of the Valar, and, getting away with it. Cheek. :p

Yeah. :p What disturbs me most is that they used the Oath to justify making no attempt to rescue their own brother. :(