>>45272
>She basically was king of the elves,
And could have been a man. Wouldn't make any difference.

>I don't think that would have made her better at all.
>She still fights him and cuts down his beast and of course she will marry,
Not her literary/semi-historical counterparts, like Cordelia or Boudica, who fell after a lost battle.
Well, they marry and have kids beforehand (they start at a different point in their lives when they become warrior women), but in the arc of Eyowin if not marriage and obscurity (like Tolkien did), the next step as strong warrior leader would have been the Queen of Rohan, satisfying the actual feminist power fantasy (which isn't simply interesting female characters like implied here: >>45244 ), and living happily ever after.
Best would have been this: kill the nazgul without the help of the hobbit, get a unit for herself and some task to do, she gets defeated and her men killed, commits suicide.
Btw. Eyowin and Theoden was inspired by Cordelia and Lear (although Lear was used for Denethor too for sure; also Cordelia gets hanged at Shakespear).
To be honest Faramir should have burnt too, completing the dual destruction/downfall of the two ruling houses of Rohan and Gondor, and tragedy of their leaders.
More to be honest Tolkien should have written a Ragnarok where all kingdoms fell, or a mini-Ragnarok where the three neighboring kingdom (Rohan, Gondor, Mordor) gets destroyed, plus the dwarves (Moria) and Isengard, and ends the royal line of Aragorn. Then - ofc - new life should born on the destroyed world with a new promise (just like after Ragnarok).
Then it really could have been some Norse story, or a Shakespearean drama. Instead of childish fairy tale, or melodrama, which Tolkien finishes every character and threads of story in.

His noticeable talents in his assburgerish linguistic skills, and his achievement is pioneer worldbuilding, and not in being a good writer.

>The Saga were poems too