That whilst he did intend to reclaim the throne, the way he went about it was about as noble and selflessly as possible. He didn't do it by conquering or by force. He did it by proving he was worthy of being king. He rescued Gondor from certain destruction. He healed people " the hands of the king are the hands of a healer. " Then when he finally does reclaim it, he ruled in a way basically the opposite of the last millennium of rulership. And worked to undo a thousand years or more of gradual decay.

"Kings made tombs more splendid than the houses of the living and counted the names of their descent dearer than the names of their sons."

[–] daemoz@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Beautifully said. And honestly I kind of forgot about this and its a major theme. I got prrtty hung up on magic leaving/dying and the fact there were still humans like the haradrim or Easterling. I think aaragon made peace with them? I really dont know how I managed to not weight his reign with more importance, guess it shows my own bias pessimism. He was basically the perfect archetype and all the symbolism of him planting the 4th tree, etc making him more a messiah than hungry for power. I didnt really think he purged humanity of sin though .. did he ever go so far to suggest that?

[–] Shard@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah he was borderlining on messiah-ish but I think given Tolkien's distaste for allegories, he didn't want to make any character too messianic.

My reading of Aragorn is not of a messianic figure, but more of an example of what a true leader should strive towards. He left no one behind, " we will not abandon merry and pippin to torment and death." He knew when things were beyond him, parting ways with Frodo, knowing he would eventually be a risk to Frodo. Most of all, putting his kingship for the betterment of the people.

I think it resonates even louder for me now because of the current geo-political situation.