r/tolkienfans

One of the most common complaints/criticisms I hear of LotR Is the amount of words devoted to describing the land and its features. Though I personally quite enjoy these passages, my inference is that these criticisms mainly come from an action-forward, plot-driven mindset.

My basic argument is that the land itself is a cast of characters. Tolkien gives each location its own distinct flavor: Hobbiton is distinct from Buckland; the woods in which Frodo meets Gildor are radically different from the Old Forest, not to mention Fangorn or Mirkwood… though the Barrow-downs and Hollin are both rather empty and relatively featureless, ruined remnants of lost civilizations, they are vastly different in tone. Calling all these “a cast of characters” is perhaps a stretch, but I think the phrase helps make an important point, one Tolkien definitely appreciated and played on: geography is history; the character of geography is inseparable from the character of those who live on it.

Where I think most other fantasy/románce authors would breeze past Hollin (for instance) with something like, “They traveled southeast along the feet of the mountains for two weeks,” Tolkien makes you *feel* the world, the land, the forests and downs and plains and villages — and I think this gives greater depth and weight to the length and scope of the journey.

Furthermore, in giving us such a rich variety of differentiated places, I think Tolkien makes us feel much more deeply just what stands to be lost if the Quest fails and Sauron triumphs. It’s not just that the Shire and Rivendell and Lórien and Rohan and Gondor stand to be laid waste, it’s also Buckland and Crickhollow and Dol Amroth and the rural lands of outlying Gondor, and Bree with its other villages, and Fangorn, and the wide empty lands between Bree and Rivendell, and the course of the Silverlode as it runs eastward down the Misty Mountains into and through the Mirrormere… the Tower Hills west of the Shire, only vaguely described but still potent in imagery, and so much more.

Would you add or detract anything to or from this argument? Of course not everyone is going to have (or be able to develop) the taste for such rich world-building, but perhaps that’s just it. Tolkien rightly described the desire for “secondary worlds” as its own unique literary taste. Perhaps those with this taste will mainly agree with me/us, and those who come to LotR, looking for an action-adventure story, just won’t ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

*Note: románce is accented to distinguish it, as heroic and fantastical, from romance in today’s sense, a love story.*

What is your favourite of all of Tolkien's works. I'm not as well-read as many Tolkien fans, but of the ones I've read, The Hobbit has always had a special place in my heart. I don't mind the inconsistencies with other parts of Tolkien's universe, stylistically and story wise I just love it.

At the Pelennor Fields, the Rohirrim encountered and defeated a larger force of Haradrim cavalry. Here is the account:

>Then Théoden was aware of him, and would not wait for his onset, but crying to Snowmane he charged headlong to greet him. Great was the clash of their meeting. But the white fury of the Northmen burned the hotter, and more skilled was their knighthood with long spears and bitter. Fewer were they but they clove through the Southrons like a fire-bolt in a forest. Right through the press drove Théoden Thengel’s son, and his spear was shivered as he threw down their chieftain. Out swept his sword, and he spurred to the standard, hewed staff and bearer; and the black serpent foundered. Then all that was left unslain of their cavalry turned and fled far away.

In fantasy literature, the good guys regularly win against superior numbers, and why? Because they are the good guys, of course. But Tolkien is not going to let it go at that; he provides not one, but three militarily credible explanations. In fact he packs all three into a single sentence:

First the morale of the Rohirrim was superior, which is another way of saying that they were more motivated than the Southrons: [T]he white fury of the Northmen burned the hotter.

Second, Théoden's men were better trained: [M]ore skilled was their knighthood.

Third, the Rohirrim had superior weaponry: with long spears and bitter. Their spears simply outreached the scimitars of the Haradrim.

That is one interesting feature of this paragraph. But there is another: The way in which Tolkien conveys the rhythm of the battle through the rhythm of his prose. The impetus of Théoden's force on the enemy comes through in Fewer were they but they clove through the Southrons like a fire-bolt in a forest”; note the incisiveness of the sibilant “f” and “s” sounds. Then as the battle breaks up into individual contests between rider and rider, the prose is divided into detached two-stress phrases:

his spear was shivered

as he threw down their chieftain.

Out swept his sword,

and he spurred to the standard,

hewed staff and bearer;

and the black serpent foundered.

The last sentence returns to continuous movement but it is the movement of flight: Then all that was left unslain of their cavalry turned and fled far away.

[I believe I have made both these points before; but not, I think, in the same post.]

Was "The Hunt for the Ring" part of Unfinished Tales written by JRR Tolkien before or after the "Tale of Years in Appendix B" part of Lord of the Rings?

In the Introduction part (Part 3 - IV The Hunt for the Ring) of Unfinished Tales:

“There is much writing bearing on the events of the year 3018 of the Third Age, which are otherwise known from the Tale of Years and the reports of Gandalf and others to the Council of Elrond; and these writings are clearly those referred to as 'sketched out' in the letter just cited. I have given them the title 'The Hunt for the Ring'. The manuscripts themselves, in great though hardly exceptional confusion, are sufficiently described on p. 342; but the question of their date (for I believe them all, and also those of 'Concerning Gandalf, Saruman, and the Shire', given as the third element in this section, to derive from the same time) may be mentioned here. They were writtten after the publication of The Lord of the Rings, for there are references to the pagination of the printed text; but
they differ in the dates they give for certain events from those in the Tale of Years in Appendix B. The explanation is clearly that they were written after the publication of the first volume but before that of the third, containing the Appendices.”

This might seem like an obvious point, but it is less obvious when you think about it.

In previous posts, I asked whether Frodo had ever met an elf before Gildor, and whether people would instantly recognize elves as elves.

In the late Third Age, most Men, Hobbits and Dwarves would only have rare chances to see and communicate with Elves, and that was only when they wanted to be seen. And yet nowhere in The Lord of the Rings do we hear anyone disbelieving that Elves exist. Which seems unusual--- immortal beings with strong powers and what seems like "magic", who live in a few enclaves hundreds of miles away, and yet everyone in Middle Earth knows they are real. And in some cases, treat them as a normal, prosaic part of life. The source of bottle deposits, for example!

Even when people react against Elves, such as when the people of Rohan and Gondor show fear or distrust of Lorien, they don't disbelieve that they exist. Despite having what seems like hundreds of years without contact, they just take it for granted that there are kingdoms of immortals living a few day's ride away.

(If anyone can think of any quotes or passages that contradict this, feel free to let me know)

(Also, I know some of this is external to the writing...if Tolkien had planned The Hobbit as part of the larger mythology, he might not have had elves doing something as common as floating barrels down a river to a city of men).

Those those unaware (I only just found out myself now), Tolkien regretted calling his elves ‘elves’ due to their usage in Shakespearean works depicting them as small creatures with wings. I think because of his works he has changed the cultural station of elves (except for the Christmas ones) to be those of tall, ancient, wise, and immortal beings of light.

What I did wonder though is why he didn’t call them fairies? I realise that I have basically answered my own question in the paragraph above, but I can’t shake the feeling that there’s more to it.

One of the prevailing themes of his work is the degradation of the world across time, history being the long defeat. The elves leave for the undying lands, the dwarves seal themselves inside their mountains, and the hobbits hide themselves from all human contact. Would it not be in keeping with this theme to depict elves as going from beings who could 1v1 a balrog to small critters who dwell in the bottom of the garden? (Writing this I realise that he wrote the hobbit with them named as elves probably before he fully developed his narrative themes).

The other reason I’m curious is that my wife is someone who reads a lot of YA fantasy romance crap about women who fall in love with vampires and angels and the like. In many of these series’ the “elven” races are called fae (as in faery). In all seriousness, do they call them by this shortened version because they fear that fairy/faery is too gay and that fae has a more regal tone to it? Is it because they are trying to distance themselves from Tolkien by naming the race something different, despite representing the same ideas?

Just a thought I’ve been having, I’d like to know what people think.

We all have our head canons, and sometimes they might clash with what Tolkien wrote. Some of us may also wish that he had written certain segments differently, or abandoned certain concepts. Do you think Bombadil is superfluous? Should the world always have been round? I'll start with some of my nitpicks.

1. I always disliked how Galadriel came to rule Lorien relatively late in the T.A., only after Amroth left. Imo it would feel better if she had already become a ruler in the S.A. and had ruled the place for millennia. Basically remove Amdir and Amroth, have Galadriel be the ruler from the start (or rather: let the Silvan Elves in that region choose her as ruler). It always felt weird to me that she "only" ruled Lorien for 1000 years. Imo it narratively diminishes a character that is supposed to be legendary even to her peers, that out of all the prominent elven Lords she ruled the least amount of time. Even though she's supposed to be the most powerful by far? I'd also give her a more prominent role during the War of the Last Alliance, whereas in the original text she doesn't get mentioned at all. Amdir/Amroth could be moved to Edhellond instead, Elves were living there anyway till relatively late in the T.A. Have a separate elven realm there that slowly diminishes in the first half of the T.A. until it finally vanishes just as the royal line comes to an end in Gondor.
2. It is a bit weird how Tolkien never explicitly describes how the Orcs actually look. If I was a writer, then I'd establish the look of my primary antagonistic race as soon as they appear in the story (Moria in Tolkien's case). He clearly had an image in mind, but then proceeded without actually describing it to the reader. Odd.
3. The mythological / historical backstory and how it is presented in LotR. There are multiple instances were older and more experienced characters explain the history of the world to the reader. The three most important imo: Gandalf and Frodo in FotR, Elrond during the Council, and Faramir and Frodo / Sam. Ask yourself: if you had never read the Silmarillion and knew nothing about this universe, would you have a sufficient grasp of the overall story from those segments alone? Some things should remain vague imo, like Sauron's origins for example, what even is this ancient evil? It adds to the mystique of the world. But, that being said, I just wish that Tolkien had found a better way to convey the general cosmology and basic history (especially of Arnor/Gondor) to the first time reader. Granted, pure exposition is boring, so this is tricky.
4. Small oddities. Granted, this gets brought up all the time, but why does the Mouth of Sauron not use some grandiose title for his master instead of what is, for all intents and purposes, an elvish insult? For example "The most excellent King of Arda", "The Lord of this World", "Tar-Mairon" or just "your God-king" to be extra provocative. It always breaks my immersion. I prefer to imagine that he actually did, and that what we read is a transmission error. Another example: why does Elrond introduce Boromir as just "a man from the south". This always felt weird, almost disrespectful to me. This is a Númenórean lord and the heir apparent of the oldest and most powerful human kingdom. He is not just a "man from the south". Something like "and here, sent by his father, the High Steward of the Númenórean Realm of Gondor, is Boromir" ... would've felt more appropriate imo.
5. I wish Tolkien had expanded Gondor just a bit more. The population, the culture, what life in Pelargir looks like, etc. For example he could've described Harlond in more detail when Aragorn landed there. Or describe ancient ruined towns and villages when Frodo and Sam travel through Ithilien. What did Linhir look like? He only mentions it in passing. What about Dol Amroth? Denethor's wife grew up there, a few sentences would make sense, maybe to establish a contrast between the more care free atmosphere in the coastal city and the rather austere life in Minas Tirith, right at the front. This would tie right back to Denethor's personality.

I keep thinking about the fact that Frodo doesn’t actually throw the Ring into the fire.

At the Crack of Doom, he claims it. He says, “The Ring is mine.” Then Gollum takes it from him, falls, and the Ring is destroyed.

And honestly, that makes the ending hit harder for me, not weaker. It feels like Tolkien is saying that no one — not even Frodo — could have simply walked into that place and beaten the Ring by sheer willpower. The Quest succeeds because Frodo carried it far enough, and because mercy kept Gollum alive long enough to be there at the end.

So I’m curious how other people read this. Does Frodo’s failure at the final moment make him less heroic to you? Or is the real heroism the fact that he carried the Ring all the way to the one place where even his failure could be redeemed?

This question is part of a larger question, but here is a simple version of it:

Would men, hobbits, dwarves, and other elves immediately recognize an elf as such?

Say that one of the members of Elrond's household decides to visit Bree, and he walks into the Prancing Pony. Would everyone immediately know that he was an elf, or would it be possible they would just think he was a Man from afar?

Thinking back on the Trilogy and other writings, it seems that every time that someone meets an elf, they immediately know it, and there can be no mistake. But are there counterexamples I am not thinking of?

Hello People. Recently listened to this Battle Cry, from the audiobook voiced by Phil Dragash. The Battle of Pelennor Fields \~ 25:00

“The last stoke of doom” approaches.

Eomer has witnessed his slain men, his Sister, and King, dead. He and his company are surrounded by the enemy, cut off from allies such as Prince Emrahil, and are thrice outnumbered, and the Rohirrhim can also see the Black Sails approaching along the Anduin, a.k.a. impending doom. All fortune is poised against them. Hope dies in his heart. He then accepts and faces his fate in a remarkably courageous way. He rides to a small hill and plants his standard. He says these lines laughing, with a lust for battle:

***“Out of Doubt! Out of Dark! To the Days Rising! I Came Singing in the Sun! Swords Unsheathing! To Hopes End I rode! and To Hearts Breaking! Now for wrath! Now for ruin! and a Red Nightfall!!!”***

Yes, this is one of the most beautiful things I’ve come across while reading/listening to the War of the Ring books. I start to imagine how Eomer must feel. The world is looking like it is going to end, and all that you love is being destroyed in that moment. If you do not find victory, all, and I mean all will be lost forever. And with this, Eomer, young and Kingly, manifests a strength that knows no fear, a strength and courage that willingly charges into the jaws of death. With the impending doom of middle earth, he rides into war with a “Lust for Battle”. The point at which rage and duty turns into a ravaging beast-like ambition to face the enemy. This makes me tear up for how amazing and epic Eomer is. In the face of assured death, he charges directly into it. Can you imagine being so bent on defying your enemy, that it becomes a Joy to engage them in battle!

11/10 Epic Moment

I just wanted to share this moment with other readers. Maybe you will revisit this moment. Cheers

** Book version, not movie.

After the battle on Minas Tirith Aragorn gathers all the military commanders and explain to them why we should march to the black gate. He also mention that they should get their best man and to explain to them why its very dangerous and why we are doing it.

How can it be that in all of Gondor, Rohan and all the other forces in this place there is not a single spy of Sauron? They even mention that the Nazgul still come to watch from afar.

The concept of spies exists deeply in the books yet for some reason there is no single spy to notify the enemy about the attack goal while thousands upon thousands of people know about it, its not secret between the allies forces.

Something I always found a bit puzzling is that the Kings of Gondor, discounting those that fell on the battlefield, lived, on average, ca. 30-40 years longer than their northern counterparts. I can't imagine that this was some oversight by Tolkien, so how could one try to explain this divergence? It's evident right from the start. Discounting Anarion and Isildur (who didn't have a natural death), Valandil (first King of Arnor after Isildur) lived to 260, whereas Meneldil (first King of Gondor after Isildur) lived to 281. A 21 year difference, and the divergence becomes only greater with the following Kings. What could be the cause? If there is a cause at all, this could just be genetics at play. Curiously it begins to level out with the last two kings of Gondor, with Earnil living to 160, comparable to the last kings of Arthedain and the later chieftains of the Dunedain.

Decline of the Numenoreans

Hi everyone. I saw the news of the Tolkien letter that has been uncovered and decided to read the chapter about Treebeard again. A few sentences made me draw parallels :

>But the Entwives gave their minds to the lesser trees [...]. They did not desire to speak with these things; but they wished them to hear and obey what was said to them. The Entwives ordered them to grow according to their wishes, and bear leaf and fruit to their liking; for the Entwives desired order, and plenty, and peace (by which they meant that things should remain where they had set them).

From this, I was shocked by the domination of free-willed people that the Entwives are described as having. Ents herd trees by guiding them, talking from them and learning from them, Entwives give orders and dominate. The Ents are Gandalf, the Entwives Saruman

And just a line after what we saw above, we have this :

>Then when the Darkness came in the North, the Entwives crossed the Great River, and made new gardens, and tilled new fields, and we saw them more seldom.

As the Shadow approaches, the Entwives cross Anduin from West to East, going towards Mordor, which has been a cursed land since Morgoth's times, rather than going South to Gondor. Could Annatar, or a lieutenant of his more like-minded to Yavanna's creations, have paid them a visit and introduced those plans in their minds ? Bringing them closer to him in mind and body, then dealing them the final blow and putting them forever under his thumb as slaves ? Maybe bringing some to Nurn, maybe further East, maybe to Angmar to help with food-production, as it was north and in the mountains and can't have been very fertile. Angmar was founded in the middle of the Third Age, and the gardens of the Entwives had become the Brown Lands since before the Last Alliance. In the same passage as before, Treebeard says that

>I remember it was long ago – in the time of the war between Sauron and the Men of the Sea – desire came over me to see Fimbrethil again. Very fair she was still in my eyes, when I had last seen her, though little like the Entmaiden of old. For the Entwives were bent and browned by their labour; their hair parched by the sun to the hue of ripe corn and their cheeks like red apples. Yet their eyes were still the eyes of our own people. We crossed over Anduin and came to their land; but we found a desert: it was all burned and uprooted, for war had passed over it. But the Entwives were not there.

This war between Sauron and the Men of the Sea is from the Second Age. Which one, whether Ar-Pharazôn's attack that humbled Sauron or the Last Alliance, I don't think we can determine, even though the Last Alliance is commonly accepted. But it is merely the latest point possible

Firstly, the names sound rather similiar, although given Tolkien's obsession with language, perhaps that is just a coincidence?

Next look at this quote from The Bible

Exodus 8:15 - "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, "

And this quote from the Akallabeth, (pg.333 of the copy of the Silmarillion I have) - "Then Ar-Pharazon hardened his heart, and he went aboard his mighty ship, Alcarondas, Castle of the Sea."

Surely, the choice in phrasing is not co-incidental, in both cases Moses and Aaron were telling Pharaoh about the word of God and Ar-Pharazon had just seen the Eagles of Manwe come out in formation. The word of God and a divine symbol which both Pharoah and Ar-Pharazon chose to ignore. So, the similiarity in context and hardening one's heart is surely an allusion?

Next, the death of Pharaoh

From the Bible,

Exodus

14:28 "The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen-the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived."

15:4 "Pharaoh's chariots and his army he has hurled into the sea. The best of Pharaoh's officers are drowned in the Red Sea."

From the Quran,

28:40 "So We seized him and his soldiers, casting them into the sea. See then what was the end of the wrongdoers!"

Now onto the death of Ar-Pharazon in the Akallabeth

"But Iluvatar showed forth his power, and he changed the fashion of the world; and a great chasm opened in the sea between Numenor and the Deathless Lands, and the waters flowed down into it, and the noise and smoke of the cataracts went up to heaven, and the world was shaken. And all the fleets of the Numenoreans were drawn down into the abyss, and they were drowned and swallowed up for ever. But Ar-Pharazon the King and the mortal warriors that had set foot upon the land of Aman were buried under falling hills: there it is said that they lie imprisoned in the Caves of the Forgotten, until the Last Battle and the Day of Doom."

Surely, even though the outcome is different, the sea-splitting in both cases further proofs that Tolkien was alluding to the story of Moses?

Now, I know Tolkien disliked allegory, so I wouldn't call it allegorical of Exodus, but surely it was an allusion to it? What do you fair people think?

P.s. This whole rabbithole I went down is thanks to Bob Dylan's song "When the ship comes in"

In Chapter IX of Book Three, Flotsam and Jetsom, Pippen and Merry encouter Gandalf the White, after having "seen" Gandalf the Grey fall with the Balrog in Moria. "Suddenly, a great horse came striding up, like a flash of silver. It was already dark, but I could see the rider's face clearly: it seemed to shine, and all his clothes were white. I just sat up, staring, with my mouth open. I tried to call out, but couldn't...'Gandalf!' I said at last but my voice was only a whisper....Then Gandalf came back to us, and he seemed relived, almost merry. He did say he was glad to us, then. 'But Gandalf,' I cried, 'where have you been? And have you seen the others? Wherever I have been, I am back,' he answered in true Gandalf manner." My questinon is why Merry and Pippen did not ask the three hunters about Gandalf's miraculous return and further, why didn't Pippen ask him about it en route to Minas Tirith. They seemed to have accepted it on face value. In this case Gandalf left it vague and the hobbits don't press him but I've always wondered if they speculated at all.

I was looking at some genealogy on Tolkien Gateway and ended up a little confused by succession debate in Gondor after the death of King Ondoher. He and his two sons were killed in TA 1944. Eärnil, the great-grandson of Ondoher's great-uncle (Ondoher's second cousin once removed), was ultimately chosen as his successor. However, Ondoher's grandson Aranarth via his daughter Fíriel had been born by this time. I thought he would be an obvious heir, but I see no mention of any claim in his name anywhere. Instead the competing claim is by his father Arvedui, husband of Fíriel, and was rejected by the Council of Gondor in favor of Eärnil.

Why did Arvedui and Fíriel not claim their son was heir at this time, and why did the Council not automatically consider Ondoher's own grandson as the next in line after his sons?

First, I understand the political reasons the Council chose against Arvedui may have applied to Aranarth as well:

• Arvedui's realm of Arthedain was considered small, so his stature was seen as insufficient to rule Gondor. Aranarth was of that house and could be seen in the same light.
• Eärnil was a victorious general and had just avenged Ondoher's death in battle, giving him a great amount of political support in the moment as a "spiritual successor" regardless of any strict rules of succession.

But my question is not really whether he would've won the throne, but why the conversation was even about Arvedui rather than Aranarth. Part of Arvedui's argument was that Fíriel would've been Ondoher's female heir by ancient Númenórean law; he claims the throne as husband of the heir. But Aranarth is HEIR to the heir, by blood not just marriage. Even if Arvedui's claim is tenuous, his seems more ironclad to inherit any claim of Fíriel's.

I would love to hear of other factors here, and your opinions. I'm far from an expert on Tolkien or on real-life royal traditions, but here are some possibilities that occur to me but don't know if they would apply/are accurate:

• Did the direct male line take strict precedence in that era of Gondor? I suppose this would explain a second cousin being the default over a maternal grandson, strange as it seems to my modern mindset.
• Would Aranarth being a young child at the time prevent him from being considered? There's some confusion over the date of his birth vs the marriage of his parents, but all seem to agree he was born a few years before his grandfather was killed.
  • Presumably either his father Arvedui would rule as regent until he was older, or the stewards would do so as they did a century later after Eärnur. But perhaps they would only govern like this given no other heir, and there was no tradition or willingness to do so with a child king? Or perhaps the feelings against Arvedui made them cautious to give him any reason to claim the rule through his son.
• In searching before posting, I found another thread here that mentioned the possibility Aranarth was born out of wedlock ("the only bastard on Middle-Earth" haha). It seems more likely the date discrepancy is just changes over multiple drafts, but it's also the only idea I heard that explains why his claim would be weaker than his father's - though even that requires certain assumptions about royalty rules for illegitimate sons vs husbands.
• Perhaps Aranarth did have the most legitimate claim, but Arvedui's choice to try to claim the throne for himself spoiled it, and pushed the Council to choose the option outside of his orbit?
• Similarly, perhaps if the argument for Aranarth went through Fíriel, then Fíriel herself should've made the claim, whereas one for Arvedui OR Aranarth spoils it by in a sense invalidating its own argument by not acknowledging her as the rightful heir.

What do you think? Why not Aranarth? Thanks for your thoughts!

Since Gandalf and the other Wizards showed up in Middle Earth around 1000 TA, and Angmar was formed around 1300, and the next 600 years was basically Angmar slowly overtaking Eriador, I assume Gandalf would have been present and would have helped Eriador against the Witchking and their allies.
On the other hand, I don't know if the prohibition that the Istari had against "matching might with might" (or whatever the phrase is) would have meant that Gandalf couldn't just ride out with the armies of Arnor and cast firebolts. It doesn't seem to be quite the way he operated.
So what was Gandalf doing for those 600 years, in Eriador, against ringwraiths, orcs and trolls?

I just finished up listening to the FOTR audiobook which was my first listen/read through in about a decade. Many years ago I recall talking with a friend who is a fellow Tolkien fan about “The Breaking of the Fellowship” chapter and him asserting that Aragorn had a plan to split the Fellowship up with himself, Frodo, Sam, and Gimli traveling to Mordor while Boromir, Legolas, Merry, and Pippin went to Minas Tirith before everything fell apart at Amon Hen. I had no memory of this being mentioned in the book at the time, but realize now after my recent listen that my friend was correct.

It’s pure speculation since I don’t think Aragorn’s thinking on this is documented anywhere, but what do you think his logic was when coming up with these groupings? Also if Boromir had not forced the sudden break up of the Fellowship and this planned split of the group had actually happened is there any chance that the mission to destroy the Ring would have ended with success?

Barliman says that Riders ask for Baggins on Monday, and I'm trying to figure out when that is relative to Frodo's progress. The Riders (all of them) reach Sarn Ford, south of Bree, in the evening of the 22nd. Five of them pursue Rangers eastward before returning to the Greenway by the end of the 23rd. I assume that's when some head north to Bree and the Witch King makes his camp. Barliman and Nob are seemingly awake when the Riders arrive so it's more likely to be the 24th than the middle of the night on the 23rd.

If my reasoning is wrong please correct me. Or even better if there's some detail that I couldn't find that matches a date to a day of the week. Now that I think about it there could be something at Weathertop or when Frodo wakes in Rivendell, but I'll post this anyway.