[Formendacil]

In some ways, the history of Gondor seems more realistic than the history of Arnor. Nephews take the throne when kings have no sons. The royal family dies out. Usurpers take the throne. Part of the kingdom is given away to newcomers. We are given a much clearer picture of villains such as Castimir, as well as greater portraits of power, such as Hyarmendacil I. The history of Gondor seems more varied than that of Arnor, yet at the same time Arnor is more truly emblematic of "good", in that it's people continue to fight the long defeat down through the years, while remaining true to their values and core principles (such as the propagation of Isildur's line).

The history of Gondor is also the history of Mordor. Pretty much anything that can be gleaned from it's annals regarding Mordor is what we know about Mordor in this era. The two are inextricably (hmm... did I make up a word?) tied. Whereas Arnor and Angmar are foes, and die together, Arnor continues to survive, and is not defined solely by its connection to Angmar, whereas Gondor's history is tied to that of Mordor. It's watch upon Mordor, it's failure to guard it, and it's subsequent wars with its minions are what marks its history most clearly.

The people of Arnor seem to be the more true heirs of the Faithful, of the Elendili of Numenor, but the people of Gondor have inherited the mantle of Sauron's opponent, and have become, almost, the new King's Men.

Okay... I have no idea where that came from, or where I am going with it, but I thought it interesting to compare the two kingdoms as we see them presented here.