Thread: Poison in Middle Earth

I was reading a post in the suggestion forum regarding using poison, and posters predictably countered that only the forces of Sauron would use poison. I don't disagree with that assessment, but it got me thinking.

Are there actually examples of Sauron's minions using poison specifically in the books and lore? The most obvious example is when Frodo was affected by the Witch King's morgul blade, but that could be categorized not as poison but an evil affect. As I understand it, a shard of the morgul blade broke off and was working it's way deeper into Frodo, evetually to convert him into a wraith under the dominion of the Nazgul and Sauron. That doesn't sound like 'poison' to me.

Is poison specifically mentioned as being used in any of the text, or are such effects more likely due to the negative effects of Sauron and his minions?

During the battle in the Chamber of Mazarbul, Sam is inflicted with a wound. As I recall, some time later (after the Fellowship've escaped Moria and are making their way towards Lórien) when Aragorn is able to take a look at the wound, and treat it, he mentions that Sam was lucky that the orc-blade that struck him was not coated in poison, and that orc-blades usually are. Might or might not be the only example, but the first example that came to mind.

Mention is also made of the Drúedain using poison against Orcs.

Originally Posted by Theorick

Mention is also made of the Drúedain using poison against Orcs.

Who are the Drúedain? I don't recall hearing of them in my reading nor do they show up in LOTRO Wiki. It seems odd to hear of a group that fought against the orcs that would use poison.

The Drúedain were a breed of men that lived in the forest between Rohan and Gondor. In the novels, they were instrumental in getting the Rohirrim forces close to Gondor undetected (and unassailed) by leading them through the forest. The Drúedain were depicted as somewhat primitive in nature.

The Drúedain were an ancient sort of tribal branch of men. A small group of them helped speed King Theoden and the Rohirrim to the Siege of Gondor by leading them on lesser know paths and scouting ahead for them.

Here's a link that might help more:

http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/d/druedain.html

Ah! OK, I recall them now. I guess I always thought of them as the Wild Men. Now that you all mention it, I do recall them saying that they sometimes put something on the tips of their weapons.

Interesting to note that there is some lore precedence for using poison by a group that would be considered part of the Free People.

I never really understood the characterization of poison as a tactic reserved for the forces of darkness. Why is poison evil? Is it because it is unsportsmanlike? Are all unsporting tactics evil? Is it because poison tends to cause unnecessary pain? What if it doesn't? Is poison more painful than getting your leg cut off with an axe?

My apologies for derailing the topic, but I think it begs the follow up issue.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

I never really understood the characterization of poison as a tactic reserved for the forces of darkness. Why is poison evil? Is it because it is unsportsmanlike? Are all unsporting tactics evil? Is it because poison tends to cause unnecessary pain? What if it doesn't? Is poison more painful than getting your leg cut off with an axe?

My apologies for derailing the topic, but I think it begs the follow up issue.

IMO the bias against poison is twofold.
One possibility is because it is not solely used on weapons, but also mixed into food, drink or otherwise passed to the victim in surreptitious ways. If poison is used on a weapon, the user has placed themselves on the field of battle, thus at least potentially exposing themselves to 'honorable' combat. Most people equate warriors = good but assassins = bad. So I guess by your definitions, it would be considered 'unsportsmanlike'.
Second, I believe there is also a sense of moral high ground as well. Using poison implies that 'the end justifies the means' and that the use of any method of disposing of your enemy is acceptable.

...and no apologies necessary, yours is also an interesting question!

Originally Posted by Vilnas

I never really understood the characterization of poison as a tactic reserved for the forces of darkness. Why is poison evil? Is it because it is unsportsmanlike? Are all unsporting tactics evil? Is it because poison tends to cause unnecessary pain? What if it doesn't? Is poison more painful than getting your leg cut off with an axe?

My apologies for derailing the topic, but I think it begs the follow up issue.

Same reason as White guys = good Black guys = bad. These things are more of symbols rather than actual claims (Tolkien wasn't racist). Poison may be a symbol of cruel and agonizing killing, which was dishonorable.

Originally Posted by Dunford

IMO the bias against poison is twofold.
One possibility is because it is not solely used on weapons, but also mixed into food, drink or otherwise passed to the victim in surreptitious ways. If poison is used on a weapon, the user has placed themselves on the field of battle, thus at least potentially exposing themselves to 'honorable' combat. Most people equate warriors = good but assassins = bad. So I guess by your definitions, it would be considered 'unsportsmanlike'.
Second, I believe there is also a sense of moral high ground as well. Using poison implies that 'the end justifies the means' and that the use of any method of disposing of your enemy is acceptable.

...and no apologies necessary, yours is also an interesting question!

Thank you. I agree that these are the usual explanations. What do we make of other forms of assault that are not intended to allow the victim to retaliate, such attacking from ambush and fading away, like Faramir?

Originally Posted by Haunt123

Same reason as White guys = good Black guys = bad. These things are more of symbols rather than actual claims (Tolkien wasn't racist). Poison may be a symbol of cruel and agonizing killing, which was dishonorable.

I also agree that poison is generally seen as a symbol of evil, especially in literature. I want to lift the cover off the symbol a bit and and see what is underneath. Despite the wicked reputation, I question whether poison is particularly more painful that wounds inflicted in melee combat. Is the difference merely that the good guys are expected to dispense merciful killing blows after the combat has ended?

Poison is seen as evil because people view evil with all the negative attributes. Poison doesn't require facing your opponent, it's seen as a really sneaky way to kill. Which is why backstabbing is also seen as cowardly and evil.

Perhaps it is because poison is a purely offensive weapon. When you use it, you are trying to kill the enemy, not prevent him from killing you. Say two are fighting. One wounds the other with a poisoned blade, the enemy drops his weapons and surrenders, but dies from the poison shortly afterward. It is different from merely killing them in the act of protecting yourself or others. Poison does not serve to protect you, just ensures your enemy dies.

Originally Posted by LoyKashka

Perhaps it is because poison is a purely offensive weapon. When you use it, you are trying to kill the enemy, not prevent him from killing you. Say two are fighting. One wounds the other with a poisoned blade, the enemy drops his weapons and surrenders, but dies from the poison shortly afterward. It is different from merely killing them in the act of protecting yourself or others. Poison does not serve to protect you, just ensures your enemy dies.

I would think that if your enemy is dead you have gained some protection.

What if your enemy is bigger and stronger than you and you have no hope of winning a straight up fight? What tactics are permitted to you?

Originally Posted by Vilnas

Thank you. I agree that these are the usual explanations. What do we make of other forms of assault that are not intended to allow the victim to retaliate, such attacking from ambush and fading away, like Faramir?

I go back to my original response. Even archers firing from ambush are subject to counter measures. For example, fast moving cavalry could envelope the archer location before the archers could flee, or your own archers could send volleys into the concealed enemy. In any case, the archer firing from ambush is still on the field of battle and subject to harm themselves.

I think the more telling argument is the concept of to what level is one willing to stoop in order to 'win'. Our society has had trouble with this concept if you look at history. Weapons such as chemical agents, nuclear weapons and such would hardly be considered more 'benign' than poison, yet were used in WWI and WWII. On the other hand, society has recognized that some forms of combat go too far and some things are unacceptable even in warfare, resulting in such things as the Geneva Convention and the prohibition against the use of nerve gas and other gas agents.

In the end, it is society that determines what is acceptable and what is 'evil'. As the old adage goes, it is not guns that kill people but people that kill people. Poison in and of itself is not 'evil'. The methodology and intent of it's use defines it's application.

But this is getting far away from Tolkien and his use of poison in Middle-earth and more a discussion of philosophy!

Originally Posted by Vilnas

I also agree that poison is generally seen as a symbol of evil, especially in literature. I want to lift the cover off the symbol a bit and and see what is underneath. Despite the wicked reputation, I question whether poison is particularly more painful that wounds inflicted in melee combat. Is the difference merely that the good guys are expected to dispense merciful killing blows after the combat has ended?

I do not think it is a reflection of whether one form of death is more or less painful than another. It's pretty difficult to obtain an objective viewpoint from the recipients of various forms of death. While there may be some form of 'mercy' during warfare I doubt the dying soldier cares too much if they are dying from poison or a slash to the chest.

I don't think inert objects are inherently 'good' or 'evil'. It is the methodology and intent of use that determines any moral issues surrounding a weapon, although I do believe in absolutes. 'Moral' people stick to some code during warfare, whether one considers such code to be too stringent or not stringent enough is debatable. But, they draw the line on certain actions or materials/weapons as being unacceptable. I would think an 'evil' organization would find such limitations superfluous and annoying and 'do whatever it takes to win'.

Shakespeare taught us something about poison and his words may be a bit responsible for how we think about the "evil" of its use.
Think on the climatic scene in Hamlet, where I think 4 different people die from poison and the painful realization that Laertes has when he truly understands that the deed cannot be undone.

Eol used poison on his Javelin in his great feat of prestidigitation (Nothing up my sleeves) when he slew Aredhel, any amateur magicians out there who can replicate hiding a spear under your cloak?.

There's always the various spiders in Middle Earth and all the different things they poison. The trees, Frodo, etc.

Elrond's wife Celebrían, when she was captured and tortured by orcs she received a poisonous wound, which was later cured by Elrond prior to her taking a ship into the West.

Originally Posted by Wolfhelm

Elrond's wife Celebrían, when she was captured and tortured by orcs she received a poisonous wound, which was later cured by Elrond prior to her taking a ship into the West.

I think this is the first reference in the thread citing poison use by the enemy. Oddly enough most references so far mention poison use by Free People or their allies.

I agree that spiders and Shelob also use poison and are allied with Sauron but I admit I was thinking more along the line of conscious application of poison instead of a natural weapon used for getting food.

Originally Posted by Dunford

I think this is the first reference in the thread citing poison use by the enemy. Oddly enough most references so far mention poison use by Free People or their allies.

I agree that spiders and Shelob also use poison and are allied with Sauron but I admit I was thinking more along the line of conscious application of poison instead of a natural weapon used for getting food.

The first reply to your original post pointed out that Orcs had a habit of poisoning their weapons.

The Haradrim are described as masters of poison IICR and aint there a Haradrim lord with the name Black Venom?

Originally Posted by Witch0King

The Haradrim are described as masters of poison IICR and aint there a Haradrim lord with the name Black Venom?

I think you may be referring to the Black Serpent, who Theoden killed in the battle of Pelennor.

Originally Posted by Boraxxe

Shakespeare taught us something about poison and his words may be a bit responsible for how we think about the "evil" of its use.
Think on the climatic scene in Hamlet, where I think 4 different people die from poison and the painful realization that Laertes has when he truly understands that the deed cannot be undone.

Yep, also remember Aquiles from the greek mythology, he a demi-god was killed by a poisoned arrow in his only weak spot (heel).

Greeks also used poison as punishment for the most serious crimes just as shakespeare

Originally Posted by Wolfhelm

I think you may be referring to the Black Serpent, who Theoden killed in the battle of Pelennor.

ah yes, I'd say the use of the word Serpent indicates use of poision.

Originally Posted by Witch0King

ah yes, I'd say the use of the word Serpent indicates use of poision.

What, just because of their banner? That's reaching, and then some.

I can think of a few reasons why it is portrayed in a negative light. Firstly it kind of puts a dampener on the whole 'noble combat' thing, the idea that battle can be glorious. Having men being killed after the battle is over when they might have survived from their injuries does feel a tad underhanded. Secondly not all poisons kill. Some poisons can cause significant disfigurement or nerve damage without killing. I know that if I was to employ this method of fighting I'd probably use animals known for having this type of poison (Cytotoxin, Neurotoxin etc) so that enemy combatants only mildly wounded with weapons bearing this poison would likely survive but would be afflicted with some nasty nerve condition or physical disfigurement so it would put a greater drain on the enemy tribes/civilisations resources and morale.
I also agree with that explanation given by a poster above in regards to there being an accepted conduct for war and things like chemical weapons being excluded. These rules may not hold alot of weight but the idea remains that some things are below the belt. Hence only primitives and evils use poison in Middle-earth.

Without putting in a spoiler I can think of at least one occasion where I as the free peoples representitive is directly asked to poison food