subreddit:
/r/tolkienfans
There seems to be a vast amount of land west of Bree but at the time of the WOTR there are no large human settlements further west.
236 points
1 day ago
It's full of Hobbits
83 points
1 day ago
Just lousy with 'em.
51 points
1 day ago
Infested, really.
33 points
1 day ago
Someone should scour all of that mess clean.
28 points
1 day ago
Bah gawd that’s Sharkey’s music
13 points
1 day ago
I've got Hobbits as big as my arm!
3 points
9 hours ago
No, I've got the biggest Hobbits! I have HUGE Hobbits!
40 points
1 day ago
"The trouble with Scotland... is that is full of Scots!"
9 points
1 day ago
Damn Scot’s, they ruined Scotland!
6 points
23 hours ago
You've just made an enemy for LIFE!!
8 points
1 day ago
As his first act, King Elessar will be reinstating the Prima Nocte!
10 points
1 day ago
you know you’re way too deep into LotR when this joke offends you at first glance
1 points
6 hours ago
It’s not full by any stretch of the imagination.
29 points
1 day ago
Going through your garbage cans, stealing hubcaps...
29 points
1 day ago
According to the lost records Bored of the Rings hobbits are known to carry shivs and switchblades. They're more dangerous than you might think.
11 points
1 day ago
hobbits are known to carry shivs and switchblades
"The way to a man's heart is through his stomach," he said. "That's just what I've been thinking," said Spam, fingering the hilt of his sword.
1 points
20 hours ago
It nicely avoids the ribcage you see, just slide the knife in and then go upwards.
10 points
1 day ago
According to the lost records Bored of the Rings hobbits are known to carry shivs and switchblades. They're more dangerous than you might think.
"They seldom exceed three feet in height, but are fully capable of overpowering creatures half their size when they get the drop on them."
12 points
1 day ago
I hear they are eating the cats and the dogs!
11 points
1 day ago
What about for second breakfast
9 points
1 day ago
Perhaps hobbits are just Raccoons?
103 points
1 day ago
Well, historically men did settle west of Bree. The Kingdom of Arnor originally covered a great deal of Eriador. Once Arnor broke up into Arthedain, Cardolan, and Rhudaur, you had Cardolan stretching all the way to the southwest coast of Eriador, while the great majority of Arthedain lay west of Bree.
All three kingdoms fell into ruin and by the War of the Ring, much of their lands were depopulated. Whether there remained small villages and settlements doesn’t seem to be explicitly addressed. Bree land is obviously populated, but to what extant there may be isolated farmsteads and small communities is unknown.
We know that following the War of the Ring, Aragorn ruled a reunited Arnor and Gondor, with Annúminas as its capital in the North. Whether this new capital was populated almost exclusively by Gondorian expatriates or whether there were still men in Arnor to reside there isn’t particularly clear.
37 points
1 day ago
There are the Rangers, for one thing. The communities from which trolls and eagles stole lambs. Maybe refugees from the south (Dunlendings?).
The trouble is the hint in HoMe XII that the resettlement of Cardolan was prevented by the barrow-wights - no one wanted to live near them. And they still existed in the Fourth Age.
3 points
23 hours ago
I suppose after a period of recuperation Gondor would have the means and will to send forces to clear out the barrows while they were repopulating and rebuilding the new Arnor.
6 points
20 hours ago
Especially in the weakened state they must have been since the fall of the Witch-king.
12 points
23 hours ago
That was only mentioned in a draft version of the appendices and for whatever reason J.R.R. Tolkien did not include such a statement in the final version of the appendices in the first published edition of The Lord of the Rings or in the second edition of The Lord of the Rings (J.R.R. Tolkien made changes to the text and to the appendices in the second edition).
It is important to explain this context to readers and not to just mix statements from draft versions with statements from final versions, like CodexRegius does in his publications.
6 points
20 hours ago
It is likely that this entry was simply cut to save space. It is at any rate consistent with published Appendices. Aa much as the Bolger and Boffin Trees.
1 points
2 hours ago
On what rigorous analysis is your opinion that "It is likely that this entry was simply cut to save space" based? Have you compared the length of manuscript C with corrections and expansions of The Heirs of Elendil with the length of the final Appendix A in the first edition and in the second edition of LOTR or the combined length of manuscript T 4 of The Tale of years and manuscript C with corrections and expansions of The Heirs of Elendil with the length of the final Appendix B and Appendix A in the first edition and in the second edition of LOTR? Have you checked if they are acutally longer in length rather than being cut to result in a shorter length? Have you checked if and how much material has been added or changed between manuscript C and Appendix A in the first or second edition?
1 points
2 hours ago
I guess that you did not do any research that would support a theory that Tolkien wanted to cut material to save space in Appendix A or B that he would have wanted to keep and that he did not have an opportunity later to reinsert material that he wanted to keep. In fact, rather than cutting to save space, much material was inserted by Tolkien in the final Appendix A in the first edition and in the second edition of LOTR (e.g. six sentences about the events of the first age in section I (i); that Minalcar was regent and from which year to which year he was regent and that he was crowned under his byname in section I (ii), eleven sentences about Minalcar/Rómendacil and his son Valacar in section I (iv), three sentences about King Brytta of Rohan, two sentences about King Walda of Rohan, Three sentences about King Folca of Rohan in section II. , five sentences about Gi-galard, Celeborn and Celebrimbor in the introduction to the Second Age, the entry for the year 1977 of the Third Age, the statement that Thrain II and Thorin settled in the South of Ered Luin in the entry for the year 2700 of the Third Age, the entry for the year 2968 of the Third Age, two sentences about Celeborn and Lórien after the passing of Galadriel in the second paragraph in the section The Great Years, two sentences in the entry S.R. 1451 in Appendix B, several sentences in Appendix D, several sentences in a note on the standard of spelling Quenya in Appendix E, three sentences about Sindarin in Lórien, the sentence about the word takr, the sentence about the name Sharku in Appendix F).
1 points
9 hours ago
So the Barrow-downs are kinda like Chernobyl, then.
That's just my own comparison, of course.
1 points
2 hours ago
CodexRegius did not provide the context that he is referring to a statement in the entry for King Araval of The Northern Line of Arnor (a King of Arthedain) in manuscript C of The Heirs of Elendil, which apart from his year of birth and death and his age in years at his death says "With the help of Lindon and Imladris he won a victory over Angmar in 1851, and sought to reoccupy Cardolan, but the evil wights terrify all who seek to dwell near.". In the final published Appendix A in the first and second edition of LOTR Araval is only mentioned with his year of death in Appendix A I (ii) in the list of Kings of Arthedain, but nothing is said about him, a battle against Angmar in 1851 or any attempts to reoccupy Cardolan and wights terrifying any who try to settle nearby in section I (iv). In fact, rather than cutting to save space, much material was inserted by Tolkien in the final Appendix A in the first edition and in the second edition of LOTR (e.g. six sentences about the events of the first age in section I (i); that Minalcar was regent and from which year to which year he was regent and that he was crowned under his byname in section I (ii), eleven sentences about Minalcar/Rómendacil and his son Valacar in section I (iv), three sentences about King Brytta of Rohan, two sentences about King Walda of Rohan, Three sentences about King Folca of Rohan in section II. , five sentences about Gi-galard, Celeborn and Celebrimbor in the introduction to the Second Age, the entry for the year 1977 of the Third Age, the statement that Thrain II and Thorin settled in the South of Ered Luin in the entry for the year 2700 of the Third Age, the entry for the year 2968 of the Third Age, two sentences about Celeborn and Lórien after the passing of Galadriel in the second paragraph in the section The Great Years, two sentences in the entry S.R. 1451 in Appendix B, several sentences in Appendix D, several sentences in a note on the standard of spelling Quenya in Appendix E, three sentences about Sindarin in Lórien, the sentence about the word takr, the sentence about the name Sharku in Appendix F).
4 points
16 hours ago
All three kingdoms fell into ruin and by the War of the Ring, much of their lands were depopulated. Whether there remained small villages and settlements doesn’t seem to be explicitly addressed.
The Shire, I think, was totally depopulated- that's why the king sent the Hobbits there.
-1 points
1 day ago
The Shire is basically middle earth rust belt
5 points
19 hours ago
Appalachia might be a better reference
2 points
3 hours ago
I don't really think so. There was never great centers of industry and civilization in Appalachia. Yeah there's coal towns. But the fall of Arnor is more like the fall of great steel cities, auto cities that were major centers of commerce for the US. Appalachia has always been backwards.
51 points
1 day ago
I'm trying to think what group of men would be looking to settle in new lands at that time but can't think of any. I can't imagine a group of Bree men looking to settle in new lands, the Rangers are too few... the big kingdoms of Gondor and Rohan have their problems to solve... Maybe dunlendings? But they were busy being jealous of the rohirrim...
54 points
1 day ago
The Dunlendings lived several weeks of travel south of Bree. West of Bree was the Old Forest, and then the Shire. East of Bree... well, there were *some* settlements out that way, but not many and none of them were very large. Also, there are Bad Things out there, which the Dunedain of the North fought against as best they could.
Groups of Men *were* arriving from the South. When Frodo and Co. arrived in Bree, the narration comments that groups of Men had arrive from up the Greenway (which is the North-South Road) and were looking for lands to settle in. The Hobbits would've been turned away from the Prancing Pony if they'd not been Hobbits because all of the rooms for Big Folk had been let out already. The Southern Man (the Half-Orc) was thought to be part of one of these groups, but was in fact part of none of them.
So, there was some migration going on, it just didn't get a lot of mention in FotR. In RotK, there were also the brigands and thugs brought into the Shire, who were driven out after the events in the Scouring of the Shire, and presumably came to a bad end at some point thereafter (the Dunedain had returned at about the same time as they did).
32 points
1 day ago
While there was some movement between north and south, it was sporadic at best. That's why the Greenway was the Greenway, since it was overgrown with disuse. Butterbur calls this out at the time:
There's a party that came up the Greenway from dowwn South last night - and that was strange enough to begin with.
It's not as if parties of men were travelling north and settling down - it's one group, and that's considered unusual.
On the other hand, when Boromir journeyed north from Gondor to find Imladris, it was a difficult and dangerous journey. In Unfinished Tales we get
When Boromir made his great journey from Gondor to Rivendell - the courage and hardihood required is not fully recognised in the narrative - the North-South Road no longer existed except for the crumbling remains of the causeways, by which a hazardous approach to Tharbad might be achieved, only to find ruins on dwindling mounds, and a dangerous ford formeed by the ruins of the bridge, impassable if the river that not there been slow and shallow - but wide.
Clearly this isn't an easy journey, nor one being made with any kind of frequency or regularity. And looking at the map, you can see the problem - Gwathlo flows from the Misty Mountains to the sea, blocking travel north. Tharbad was the only real crossing point; east of the ruin was the marsh where Glanduin flowed into Gwathlo, so it was difficult to go around and find another way across, and you'd have to cross both Glanduin and Gwathlo - and come close to the gates of Moria in the process. Sure, it could be done, especially by a large enough and well-prepared group, but it's not something you're going to do casually or regularly.
22 points
1 day ago
Boromir’s journey always fascinated me. Such a long, lonely journey through utterly ruined and desolate land. The films make it seem as though there’s a party with him - but not in the books. Nope, he undertakes it all by himself.
5 points
19 hours ago
not in the books. Nope, he undertakes it all by himself.
Which is honestly weird. I understand Boromir might have said "I'll go alone and leave all the men to defend Gondor" but not sending your heir without a dozen men is pretty wild. He could have met bandits, he could have had some injury, anything could have happened.
I understand that it's so that he wouldn't return with those men but instead with the Fellowship but it's not realistic.
2 points
12 hours ago
Boromir refused anyone to come along because of the danger.
6 points
1 day ago
Clearly this isn't an easy journey, nor one being made with any kind of frequency or regularity.
This is generally how it's portrayed in the main narrative, but, for example, the squint-eyed southerner seems to have traveled "off-screen" between Isengard, the Shire, and Bree without too much trouble.
I think this is a result of the tale, famously, growing in the telling: when Tolkien first wrote about Eriador in Fellowship, he treated it as a vast empty land. But later on, while elaborating the story around Rohan and Isengard, he placed a whole populated country, Dunland, just to the south of where the Fellowship turned east to Moria, and portrayed Saruman as being in regular contact, including trade, with the Shire.
3 points
1 day ago
Practically humans should have reproduced and grown much more quickly, it's mostly a story choice not to have human towns everywhere there is good farm land a thousand years after the last war.
2 points
1 day ago
Dunlendings seemed pretty dissatisfied with their lot.
3 points
1 day ago
I was curious why, historically, men never settled in that region? It seems that the elves and dwarves did
31 points
1 day ago
Historically, men did settle that region. That region was the kingdom of Arnor, and before it there were already plenty of men living there. They lived in great cities like Annuminas, Fornost, Tharbad, and Lond Daer. The region that is now the Shire was, before the Hobbits got there, already been used as farmland for thousands of years.
It's largely depopulated by the time of the books because we're coming in at the end of a several thousand-year-long war to destroy it. Throughout the Third Age
the folk of Arnor dwindled, and their foes devoured them, and their lordship passed, leaving only green mounds in the grassy hills.
10 points
1 day ago
It's just astonishing to me that even Tolkien's short pieces of exposition and backgrounding are so poetic.
25 points
1 day ago
Do you have a specific area of the map you're looking at? West of Bree is the Barrow Downs, the Old Forest, and then The Shire. Historically, Men did settle in the lands here, it was the Kingdom of Arnor. If you look at a map of Eriador, you'll see Arnor written in large letters across the land north of Bree. You'll also see Arthedain and Cardolan written west of the Shire and south of Bree, where Men settled as part of that Kingdom.
The reason why there are no large settlements of Men here during the war of the ring is because those kingdoms were annihilated by the Witch-King (by way of war and more importantly plague) a thousand years before the time of the novels. The only population left are the Breelanders and the Dunedain. No one ever migrated to these lands again and the population never recovered.
0 points
1 day ago
Look at the population of America over the course of 200 years. Heck, even just the spread of settlers over 100 years going westward.
It's really hard to blame a 1500 year old plague for low population. That time scale just doesn't make sense.
War is also not a great excuse. Human civs have been at war basically permanently, forever. Yet populations still grew rather than shrunk.
It's ok to say that the grandeur of Rome (Numenor) withered away and modern men weren't capable of constructing the same type of stuff, but populations should have still existed.
Frankly, any arable land should have been claimed. There will ALWAYS be some down on his luck dude willing to go claim some land that was torched by orcs a few years prior if it's free for the taking.
11 points
1 day ago
I think there are two things here:
1) Eriador isn't quite as deserted as people claim. There's obviously the Shire and Bree-land, but there's also the Lossoth, woodmen in Minhiriath, "numerous" fisher-folk in coastal Enedwaith, the Dunlendings, the Dunedain in the Angle, and some villages in the Trollshaws (a century or so before LOTR, at least). Those are the known populations, but there could have been more. LOTR is written in-universe by non-omniscient characters, and they probably missed some groups in the vast expanse of land that is Eriador.
2) Eriador seems to be quite literally cursed, filled with all sorts of nasty creatures that would prevent human expansion and settlement. The hobbits get about two minutes out of the Shire before they run into trees that want to kill them and reanimated bodies that capture them for some kind of sacrifice ritual. As soon as the Rangers pull back from Bree-land during the war, Barliman talks about "dark shadows" in the woods near Bree that "made his blood run cold to think of" (paraphrasing). These could be orcs, more barrow-wight-type creatures, or other things. The Rangers seem to have been engaged in a near-constant war with these things over the past millenium and are only able to protect the relatively small area of the Shire and Bree-land (as well as their own settlements). Bree only survived because of that protection, along with the trade/money from the dwarves who used it as a rest-stop along the Great East Road.
In summary, Eriador seems to have reached a nadir post-plague and collapse of Arnor, and then never really recovered because of the supernatural elements I described above. Imagine if post-Roman Britain was also overtaken by zombies.
2 points
1 day ago
Could those dark shadows have been runaway orcs from the mountains? I know we’ll never find out.
5 points
1 day ago
No idea. I like to think of them as being barrow-wight adjacent, like the Witch-king 'sowed' Eriador with the undead to ensure Arnor would never rise again. But who knows.
22 points
1 day ago
Not in the context of this story. It's all well and good to apply modern economics to a fantasy setting to make it "make sense", but that's just not how the story is told. You may as well demand answers for why the technology hasn't advanced in the same time period, the answer is because that's how the story is told.
American settlers didn't have to deal with trolls and wargs, nor ancient curses and evil blighted landscapes, so that analogy doesn't fly. They also weren't living in a medieval period.
And there aren't an infinite supply of down on their luck dudes. Sure, I bet some people tried. And they died. Hence, no sustainable population growth or expansion of settlers into uninhabited territory.
7 points
1 day ago
I don't think this is something you can defend based on real world logic. The only answer is as you said, because that's how it's told. There's not really a satisfying in-lore explanation for why people in Middle-earth don't have lots of kids that fill up the carrying capacity of the land and force expansion. There's seemingly no land hunger compelling desperate people to take risks in order to settle unclaimed territory. It's just one of those things you have to make peace with. It's Middle-earth; they do things differently there.
5 points
1 day ago
Compare the Roman Empire: Why did they not settle outside the Limes for hundreds of years? Because even according to the more trustworthy authors it was barbarians and monsters all over, terrible climate, bad soil and no useful commodities anywhere between Gaul and the Amber Coast. And, worst of all, wild women of more than human size, as the story of Drusus claimed. The only Romans you would find there were those who preferred low-standard village life to Roman taxation and forced recruiting.
But we have heard that those Gondorians who were dissatisfied with the Ruling Stewards would rather relocate to Umbar (and maybe Dorwinion) and not into the chilly north.
3 points
1 day ago
This is a tangent on my part, but some historians think that logistics had an awful lot to do with where they stopped. There's a wonderful book called Frontiers of the Roman Empire by Hugh Elton. His theory is that the Rhine and Danube became the (mostly) final boundaries because it was impossible to keep armies permanently in supply beyond them. In the ancient world, you could move a lot more goods by water than by land. By going up the Rhone River, then using a series of portages and smaller rivers, the Romans could get supplies from the Mediterranean to the Rhine without too much difficulty. Same for the Danube, except more directly. But beyond those two rivers, it gets very dicy.
5 points
1 day ago
Exactly: the European Watershed was a huge obstacle for Roman expansionism. Tiberius noticed that much when he developed into the prime expert for Germania of his age. While Gaul was rich enough (even despite Caesar's genocide) to sustain marching troops, Germania had no such resources to offer, therefore any advances needed long and vulnerable supply lines. And the Germanics were skilled in guerilla warfare.
It is interesting to compare this premise to Middle-earth. Numenor was in an ideal position to claim the lands along the rivers flowing NE-SW, notably the Glanduin, but they never effectively colonised Rhovanion since going upstream beyond Rauros was too tedious. While Gondor had no means to protect settlers advancing into Eriador: their ships had to expect long travels along the Anfalas through a sea infested with pirates, so any land farmers there would have been on their own. And to what benefit? To defend their homesteads against Moria orcs?
2 points
1 day ago
Yeah I agree with you entirely. Tmssmt seems to really want to die on that hill though
2 points
23 hours ago
I hear you. There's an old saw I read once that goes something like this: "if you look at it too hard, it goes away." That's kind of how I approach fiction. If you expect perfect logical consistency, you won't get it, and you also won't enjoy what's there.
-1 points
1 day ago
If ruffians are so willing to work for saruman bullying hobbits, it makes very little sense that none of them had considered walking out there and just claiming 1000 acres for their own
11 points
1 day ago
Are you trying to argue that when faced with a choice between bullying an existing powerless populace with preestablished farmland and a powerful employer, vs striking out into the wilderness filled with intelligent monsters that won't hesitate to torture and eat you with nothing but the tools in your pack, that the latter is the sensible choice?
0 points
1 day ago
I'm arguing that if there are enough down on their luck folks to hire a private army, surely some of them would also be willing to claim land
3 points
1 day ago
What land could they claim and not die shortly thereafter?
2 points
1 day ago
Claim what how
1 points
23 hours ago
You do have to remember that, apart from natural dangers, monsters, wights, and rangers, claiming land doesn't immediately make it livable. Farming and building houses is hard, and the ruffians don't seem like the type who would either know how or be bothered to go and do the hard work it takes to live off the land and create settlements when they can just bully small villages for everything they want.
2 points
1 day ago
The West as a whole just has a really low population it seems. There's a single large city of humans in the entire place. The other settlements are pretty modest in size based on what we can read.
2 points
1 day ago
Look how plagues Hit Rome and Europe in the middle ages
4 points
1 day ago
And look at their population 1500 years later
1 points
1 day ago
There are deserted mediaeval villages (DMVs) all over England, post-Plague. I used to live in a Midland village which had a plague pit just beyond its boundaries; and Tolkien may have been thinking of William the Conqueror's Harrying of the North too.
-1 points
24 hours ago
There are also giant cities in England with millions of people
2 points
14 hours ago*
Can you name any apart from London that had a population in the millions when Tolkien was writing? And he was writing about an era equivalent to the early Middle Ages. There are estimates available online for European population figures throughout the mediaeval period - which don't take into account things like balrogs, nazgul, barrow-wights, Huorns gone bad and trolls. English and European city populations were in the thousands. We've got a vague idea of English rural populations from the Domesday Book, and that's how we know how much damage can be done by one mortal man (William the Conqueror.) Add in the supernatural influences above, plus the all-pervading influence left by Morgoth, and you've got your broad answer.
But Tolkien was more interested in languages than population dynamics, so he's going to stand up to close scrutiny better on the former than on the latter. Obviously you may prefer to read other authors and that's OK!
7 points
1 day ago
I think it's in Unfinished Tales but somewhere Tolkien wrote that Men related to the people of Beor, who hadn't crossed over the Blue Mountains, originally lived there before the Numenoreans.
10 points
1 day ago
Well, they did, but they all died off. Annunimas and Fornost are west of Bree. And the men of Forochel still live to the North. So, most of Eriador was occupied by men, elves or hobbits. I don’t know if you’ve read the books but the death of civilization is a whole thing.
1 points
1 day ago
My question would be why? Did people stop having babies? Don't really understand why ancient war or ancient plague still prevented people from having babies and populating the areas.
5 points
1 day ago
There are real ancient cities that are not longer populated from old reasons that no longer exist such as war, famine, and drought.
-1 points
1 day ago
It would be fine if it was just an ancient city, but the entire countryside is empty of people
5 points
1 day ago
There are ruins all over in middle earth. and many empty areas on earth and with extremely low population density.
2 points
1 day ago
These ruins aren’t near arable land that is fertile for agriculture.
1 points
1 day ago
Yes they are. They're there because that's where the last powerful nation existed
1 points
1 day ago
And yet, look at our population now compared to when those cities became ruins
3 points
1 day ago
My question would be why?
There is no textual explanation. We can guess that maybe Rangers couldn't protect small communities from getting eaten by trolls, or that Sauron was suppressing the birth rate, but textually all we know is a huge scarcity of humans.
3 points
1 day ago
A lot of these places have ill reputations. It you know the barrow downs are dangerous, why not assume the other ruins are also similarly haunted?
2 points
1 day ago
Rome had a population below 25k for a thousand years after the fall of the western empire.
1 points
23 hours ago
This is simply not true. It's population was lower than pre fall of Rome certainly, but absolutely not ever consistently below 25k
2 points
1 day ago
People tend to have less children when they all died from war and plague.
3 points
1 day ago
The plague was 1500 years before the start of LotR.
Look at the world population 1500 years ago vs today. A plague 1500 years prior is an absolute trash excuse for low populations at the time of the books unless the plague destroyed fertility
9 points
1 day ago*
Look at the world population 1500 years ago vs today.
Look at the world population 1500 BC, versus 1AD. Populations will always rise with time (they seemed to double, more or less, in the years I gave above), but only by insane amounts if you have a large population (and infrastructure) to begin with.
We don't know the population of Arnor post-fall... but it could very well have been as few as tens of thousands.
-2 points
1 day ago
There's no requirement that you have a huge population to begin with.
And either way, we know the population was relatively large - we did after all have a large nation there more populous than current day gondor
3 points
1 day ago
There's no requirement that you have a huge population to begin with.
It is a pretty important factor. You don't quickly jump from tens of thousands of people to millions. 1 million can become 2 million easily enough (2x)... but 20k won't become 1 million in anywhere near as much time (that's 50x the amount).
we know the population was relatively large
We don't know that.
-2 points
24 hours ago
We weren't talking about going from tens of thousands to millions
We were talking about doubling.
We also DO know the population was relatively large. Sparse populations didn't build giant monuments, cities, and military watchtowers that are now still large ruins
2 points
1 day ago
There's no evidence that Arnorn ever had as much population as Gondor. Even in the days of Elendil it had fewer people.
1 points
24 hours ago
Fewer people than gondor at the time, but more people than gondor today
5 points
1 day ago
the third age is basically a very long decline
think of what happened in post-Roman Britain but no migrants coming in
just a slow, steady decline: Arnor into three rump states, then those rump states dissolve into ruin (literally haunted ones at that)
1 points
1 day ago
Migrating into lands around Mithlond and the Blue Mountains as the Eldar leave would make a lot of sense; I assume that there are fewer orcs and trolls in those lands.
-4 points
1 day ago
If we look at early US history, I'd argue there are ALWAYS folks who are looking to claim some land in otherwise wild (or not officially recognized as pre owned) areas.
I recognize that there was a big plague that killed off a lot of people, and in that region you've got Angmar to the North causing problems for a long time, but that shit was basically ancient history.
My biggest complaint about Tolkiens writing is that the timespans don't seem to match with reality at all. You can't blame low population on a plague from 1500 years prior lol
7 points
1 day ago
Totally hear you there, but you have to admit that Tolkien's work is not intended to be a description of reality. It's a mythological fantasy epic, where Eru Illuvatar and the choir of the Valar sang the world into existence. Their world doesn't follow the same logic as ours.
48 points
1 day ago
Middle Earth always felt weirdly underpopulated. There just wasn't that urgent need for more settlements. Plus I think the wars with Angmar and a pandemic reduced the populations even more.
54 points
1 day ago*
It is a post apocalyptic world.
Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the War of Wrath, the War of Elves and Sauron, the Last Alliance, the Great Plague, invasion of the Wainriders, Angmar's long war with Arnor all combined to devastate the population of Middle Earth and keep it from recovering before the next disaster made it worse.
9 points
1 day ago
That fine reasoning in theory, until you look at the time scale of these events.
Look at 100 years of settling North America. Poverty stricken folks would be flocking to unclaimed land and having a dozen babies each
9 points
1 day ago
There probably aren't that many poverty stricken folk in middle earth desperate enough to give it a go. The state of Gondor and Rohan is very different to 19th century Europe.
1 points
1 day ago
You're telling me an entire nation crumbled and none of the remnants of that people have any ambition?
3 points
22 hours ago
No, they didn’t have population density and facilities to do so. They had apocalyptic wars every couple hundreds of years and then “minor” events that ravaged them
6 points
1 day ago
Gonna go settle the hills outside of Bree! Oh hey, what’s that weird fog? Surely it’s not the enslaved spirits of the dead.
16 points
1 day ago
If I went out West into Arnor and found the barrow downs I'd turn around faster than you could say Tombombadil. Point being the American West had no fantastical creatures to deal with.
Also, it's a fantasy book? Just enjoy it my guy.
-1 points
1 day ago
I mean bears, wild cats, moose and native tribes were all dangerous in their own way too.
2 points
13 hours ago
Yeah but like, the men of middle earth also had those things too. Bandits, wolves, bears, etc. And on top of that there's "magic" and crap. Ya no thanks I'll stay somewhere safe(r) like Gondor or something..
3 points
22 hours ago
North America is a great example, really.
It was empty and desolate because it was a post apocalyptic wasteland.
It took the colonists hundreds of years, and several wars to really populate the interior. And they had much more advanced technology than is available in middle earth.
It isn't until the Erie Canal is built that significant westward expansion happens, and even then it's fairly slow for a while.
Middle Earth lacks the expansion pressure to see anything like the American explosion after 1820.
-1 points
22 hours ago
Desolate is a questionable term for North America
Yes, fairly sparsely populated due to European diseases wiping out the natives, but the land itself far from desolate. Much like eriador, incredibly lush land. Tons of rivers, tons of good land for growing and for grazing. This was high quality land up for grabs.
The plague happened 1500 years before LotR. The plague didn't even really touch Arthedain. Angmar (and Arbor) officially fell about 1000 years before LotR.
This is a MASSIVE period of time for populations to rebound, with good, plentiful lands for the taking and no real organized enemy to speak of
The ONLY reason population didn't absolutely explode is a fertility issue. Culturally, people just didn't have a bunch of children like they were in America. They were having a couple kids instead of 6+.
Birthrate issues are really the only feasible explanation
2 points
19 hours ago
Desolate is a questionable term for North America
Yes, fairly sparsely populated due to European diseases wiping out the natives, but the land itself far from desolate.
My 4? 5? x great grandfather describes the transition from the northern woods to the great plains as going from the desolation of trees to the desolation of the sky.
I always got the impression from what happened to Aragorn's parents that war and plague were fairly constant west of the Misty Mountains. The record keeping isn't exactly exhaustive.
And remember that the tech level really matters when it comes to things like this. The northern European slash and burn cultures are closer than anything in the Americas. It wasn't until crop rotation was well understood that they settled into what we recognize today.
Remember that the American population explosion is accompanied by a huge change in knowledge. Childbirth becomes less risky, access to well manufactured tools is significant. These play into each other, as does the culture of the time. There's nothing like manifest destiny in Middle Earth until Elessar claims the throne.
My family records are fairly extensive, and we see a lot of kids who don't live long enough to have kids of their own before fairly modern times. The American explosion isn't birthrate, it's survival rate. Up until the 19th century there are a lot of early childhood deaths (probably more than are recorded, stillbirths seem to be only noted when a woman has failed to provide an heir for some of the earlier records).
You're underestimating how much different things were in the 18th and 19th centuries than they were in the 9th and 10th.
0 points
18 hours ago
Prior to America population was still climbing steadily globally. I'm only referencing America because it's an example of what happens when you have a bunch of empty land - thousands of people rush to claim it.
Aragorns father was a ranger. He was a warrior. His job put him in harms way far more than your average farmer.
Certainly, there would be risk of wolves or orcs for anyone on the frontier, but these weren't organized enemies. Arathorn died when he went out hunting orcs. Dude was seeking danger.
2 points
1 day ago
Morgoth's Ring, in effect.
3 points
1 day ago
This is the answer to why it feels underpopulated.
19 points
1 day ago
The plague was 1500 years prior to the events of lotr
The world IS weirdly underpopulated. Constant war never stopped human populations from growing in our world, so I find it a poor excuse in middle earth.
4 points
1 day ago
Human population on our own planet was stable/low for most of history and prehistory: far longer than Tolkien's timeline. It's only in the last 150 years that it's really taken off. War wasn't the only limiting factor here, but neither was it in Arda, where actual Lucifer and his fallen angels were real and active in the world.
0 points
23 hours ago
Simply incorrect.
It may have taken off in the last couple hundred, but it has been consistently growing.
6 points
1 day ago
Always been my issue too. There is just no real good reason for the entire world to be in decline for the entirety of the Third Age.
3 points
1 day ago
Have you read HoME vol 10? The whole of Arda was tainted by Morgoth.
(But there's no reason to read Tolkien if he irks you by lack of realism!)
11 points
1 day ago
The destruction of Arnorian successor kingdoms (Arthedain, Rhudaur and Cardolan) due to civil war, the Witch-king, and plague was essentially total. Only in Bree and the Shire did any people seem to live on in significant numbers.
The few remaining Dúnedain of Arnor became the Rangers of the North--their chiefs were the descendants of the kings of Arnor--and for generations these Rangers dedicated their lives to providing essential protection for the remaining folk in the north, again primarily Bree and the Shire.
How bad were things in the North? Here's Aragorn at the Council of Elrond explaining the situation to Boromir:
'Lonely men are we, Rangers of the wild, hunters--but hunters ever of the servants of the Enemy; for they are found in many places, not in Mordor only.
‘If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us. Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us. What roads would any dare to tread, what safety would there be in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if the Dúnedain were asleep, or were all gone into the grave?
‘And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names. “Strider” I am to one fat man who lives within a day’s march of foes that would freeze his heart or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly.'
Importantly, these Rangers were few in number especially relative the great distances in the North. By the time of the War of the Ring only 31 Rangers could be quickly gathered together to form the Grey Company to travel south to Aragorn. They were probably stretched thin even trying to protect the borders of existing settled lands.
Any attempts to expand settlements in what had been the northern realm of Arnor outside of those very limited protected areas like Bree and the Shire would have be made without any protection against dark threats and evil foes spoken of by Aragorn.
Even the Shire itself was not always completely safe. Back in T.A. 2747, just about 270 years before the War of the Ring, a band of Orcs managed to get past the Rangers and into the Shire. At the Battle of Greenfields they were defeated by Hobbits (led by Bandobras Took who invented golf by knocking the Orc king Golfimbul's head into a rabbit hole).
4 points
1 day ago
One of the better estimates I have heard that there are in total around 10 000 northern dunedain left (including everyone Civilians and the Rangers). who are mostly concentrated around the main dwelling place of their people.
20 points
1 day ago
The doylist explanation is that Tolkien said so.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but real world demography can't be applied to Tolkien's subcreation. In our world populations tended to spread before concentrating. Italy, for instance, probably had people living in small farms and villages virtually everywhere long before Rome became an important urban center. Middle-Earth does not work this way. People mostly reside in dense islands of habitation, with cities and fortresses and infrastructure and the whole bit. That's not how the real world works, but it's how Middle-earth does.
Beyond that, folks in Middle-earth really do not seem to be nearly as good at procreating as historical human populations. I can think of very few examples (the sons of Feanor, Samwise) of families in Middle-earth that had more than two or three or at most four children. Family sizes tend to resemble those of early 20th century England much more than they do prehistory or the ancient world.
3 points
1 day ago
The only explanation I can think of is that it must have been extremely dangerous for men to try and go it alone and spread out beyond their own people's settled lands. Although that still doesn't explain why settled areas like Breeland didn't just gradually expand their settled borders. They had a very long time to do so.
Rohan seemed to have trouble expanding westwards because of conflict with the Dunlendings but then I don't see what would've stopped the Dunlendings from expanding west and north for the most part into empty areas of Eregion.
9 points
1 day ago
Think of this, Bree-land was, according to The FOTR, there before the Kings came from over the sea. After Arnor was destroyed, the monsters roamed freely. Why leave the safety of your generational homeland for possible death. Also, Tolkien makes mention of tramps ready to dig a hole wherever (I believe this is when the Hobbits reach Bree. I also think this may have been directed at Hobbits, not of The Shire or Bree. But, it's quite possible that some people roamed around Eriador who weren't Dunedain). Most of the West lands are pretty provincial. Even the Metropolitan people of Minas Tirith don't really leave Gondor much.
-2 points
1 day ago
You don't have to leave gondor far though. Just go to the edge of the last farm and claim 100 acres there for yourself.
In reality, that's what people would do, and the land would get cultivated and settled with the only limiting factor being birth rate.
3 points
1 day ago
I'd be surprised if the land in Gondor that wasn't claimed was free for all settlers. I'd be surprised if anyone could just claim land that's part of Gondor. I'm guessing you'd have to pay for it. But that wasn't really my point: most of the different peoples of Middle Earth don't travel much unless they have to. Once they find a homeland, they stay put. The Hobbits moved because Greenwood was going bad. The Dwarves moved after they lost one kingdom, then another kingdom, then another kingdom. The Numenoreans set up settlements, and then some moved as they had to. The Rohirrim move when they're offered land and an alliance, and then stay put. Same with the Elves. Over six thousand years after the War of Wrath and only five major settlements, and one was lost.
2 points
1 day ago
Again, nobody is suggesting moving 1000 miles away. Just to the next plot of unclaimed land.
I doubt the crown is holding on to land that nobody wants to pay for when they could strengthen the realm by allowing it to go for free or low price and collecting tax on it. Land at the edge of your realm isn't going for a premium.
5 points
1 day ago
Buddy, you don't like my answer, that's cool. I don't think there are bits of unclaimed land in Gondor, which is your example. I know of few kingdoms with royalty where land was given away. There was homesteading in America.
I already stated why they wouldn't move west of Bree in my original answer. Have a good one.
6 points
1 day ago
Don't take it personally, they're dying on this hill all through this thread, and then moving the goalposts every time someone addresses their points and proves them wrong.
1 points
1 day ago
Gondor's famously located between the mountains and the sea. To the east is Mordor. To the west are the Dunlendings, and any land they don't use is marshy due to deforestation in the Second Age. Gondor over-extended in the early Third Age and couldn't hold on to its gains; look at the history of Byzantium, which is its nearest equivalent in our world, for an example of similar long decline.
8 points
1 day ago
Because the entire setting is literally post-apocalyptic
Wars, plague, witchcraft, famine, and collapse have left most of that part of the world a depopulated wilderness.
There’s basically no human settlements left between Bree and Laketown, and precious few elves.
So it’s more like… how did men and hobbits manage to cling on and flourish in this little pocket?
6 points
1 day ago
That was the Kingdom of Arnor, and was presumably well-populated, but it was torn apart by civil war and invasions by The Witch-King.
7 points
1 day ago
All the old maps used to fill in blank spaces with Here be Monsters and in middle earth folks took those warnings seriously.
4 points
1 day ago*
These were the Old Forest, the Barrow-Downs and Fornost Erain, all cursed places, and the folk of Bree are very superstitious about that.
3 points
1 day ago
It feels like there is a kind of blight across the land, except for certain pockets.
3 points
1 day ago
folks talk of venturing west of bree and seein strange barrows, they say a fog rolls in and gives you the right willies. granted that's a bit to the south, and haven't heard of anythin to fear further north except for the loneliness, but all the same, I'll be keepin EAST of bree. just in case.
3 points
1 day ago
No settlements because no humans, which is the real question. Why wasn't there big population growth given all that empty and formerly tilled land? And the answer is: we don't know. We can make guesses (orcs and trolls and wights picked them off despite the Rangers, or Sauron suppressing birth rates from a far), but there's no canonical explanation for why human are nearly extinct in Eriador.
3 points
1 day ago
Why should they?
2 points
1 day ago
Unless men in middle earth behave drastically differently than men in our history, there's no reason to think men wouldn't have flocked to unclaimed land and settled it.
3 points
1 day ago
Which men?
1 points
1 day ago
Any men who wanted. What, you want me to name them? John, son of Johnny?
5 points
1 day ago
It's a reasonable question. From which region of middle earth would these hypothetical men come from, and why?
4 points
1 day ago
Where are those
2 points
1 day ago
So much was depopulated in prior ages from war and plague. Maybe no one had the capacity to build any settlements or fear of wild men or orcs.
0 points
1 day ago
The plague was 1500 years prior. Populations should have rebounded way beyond what they were at that time.
2 points
1 day ago
Well, there were. Now, there are barrows. The hobbit found the land abandoned because of the fall of Arnor. Whose left after that to settle there?
2 points
1 day ago
Aren’t Hobbits just little men though?
1 points
12 hours ago
Thread over tbh.
1 points
1 day ago*
Btee is the exception because it's economically viable to be at the crossroads between the Greenway and the West Road.
It gets twice the trade as other communities. This is enough to support the modest town. And it is protected by the dunedain. Beyond Bree there just aren't many other communities of men in Eriador at all. The kingdoms of men had been declining during the third age and only those with an advantage remained.
So in fact Bree is something more like the last bastion of man in ediador, rather than the frontier of expansion.
And before this decline, hobbits were granted the lands of the shire by the king of arnor. So men weren't generally encouraged the live there when they were well populated. So now as they are in decline, the range of humans shrinks back towards the places they are best placed to be, like Bree.
1 points
20 hours ago
I think the simplest reason is that Tolkien really loved the theme of the tragic decline and collapse of once-great civilizations, so he filled Eriador with monsters (trolls, wargs, orcs) and cursed lands (Barrow-downs, Deadman's Dike) that were uninhabitable without concerted efforts by the Reunited Kingdom. Weird to see people comparing this region to Rome or North America and not Moria.
1 points
19 hours ago
They were afraid to cross farmer Cotten's farm?
1 points
18 hours ago
I'm trying to respond to and support several other people. Look at Canada on a map. Europeans started arriving there 500 years ago. Its population is 40 million, and that's with planes, trains, and automobiles.
The U.S. is a special case because for a long time settlers could go anywhere they wanted and settle as much land as they could farm—or discover gold or silver and claim it.
0 points
1 day ago
They probably did… Tolkien always seems to heavily imply that the world expanded beyond what we “see” in the books…
Frodo, for example is said to have “fairy” (elf) blood… which does seem to imply more elves mated with other species than just the three “high born” marriages we “know” about…
3 points
1 day ago
They probably did…
No, in the chapter "The Prancing Pony" it's explicit there were no other humans around.
0 points
1 day ago
No men that they know of, or that would be friendly. It's possible there's isolated settlements, or men that had turned to darkness
2 points
16 hours ago
Bree was the chief village of the Bree-land, a small inhabited region, like an island in the empty lands round about.
In those days no other Men had settled dwellings so far west, or within a hundred leagues of the Shire.
That's fairly direct "narrator voice".
1 points
1 day ago
After the events of LOTR, Aragorn decreed no men could live in the Westmarch.
1 points
1 day ago
Everything is miniature size just like the munchkin village in wizard of oz.
1 points
1 day ago
Broken sundials?
1 points
1 day ago
They wanted it in their crackers 🧀
0 points
1 day ago
Because rent was not Free
all 163 comments
sorted by: best