What happened to Mordor?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn
No, Gondor wasn't a colonial power.

Actually, Gondor, and later the Rohirrim, were essentially
colonial powers in Rohan, chasing out the Dunlendings-
which is why that folk helped Saruman.

From Robert Foster's the cpmplete guide to Middle-Earth:

In the Third Age they hated the Rohirrim, who
had driven them out of the northern valleys of the Ered
Nimrais and the plains of western Rohan, and so they
frequently attacked that country.

I must say I've always been not unsympathetic to the
Dunlendings plight, reminiscent of North American and
Australian native peoples (but without the virtual genocide
conducted in those regions).

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

Actually, Gondor, and later the Rohirrim, were essentially
colonial powers in Rohan, chasing out the Dunlendings-
which is why that folk helped Saruman.

I'm not certain 'colonizers' would be the best classification for Rohan, and more specifically, Gondor. Gondor seemed to me to be more of a feudal Imperial power, receiving vassalage from the Rohirrim (who were originally colonists of Gondor, so to speak). In addition, they received tribute from various client nations (like Harad), and various lords had jurisdiction over pieces and parts of the realm (Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth, Faramir, Prince of Ithilien, etc.).

As I said, Rohan was originally a colony of Gondor, rather like when the English exported Scots Protestants to Northern Ireland, but they were autonomous. Perhaps a better analogy would be when the Roman Emperor gave the Goths an area already abandoned by the Romans to be their homeland (the Gondorions in effect gave Rohan land they could no longer control).

[Bêthberry]

I suppose it is mildly interesting and typical of Tolkien that, while he mentions kingdoms and monarchs, he seems to avoid the C-word and the E-word. Is that simply a function of his debt to a medieval system of governance?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I suppose it is mildly interesting and typical of Tolkien that, while he mentions kingdoms and monarchs, he seems to avoid the C-word and the E-word. Is that simply a function of his debt to a medieval system of governance?

Tolkien I think was intentionally (or perhaps unintentionally) vague about a lot of things. There is little information about commerce outside of the Shire (like, who minted the currency for Sam to have silver pennies to buy Bill the horse?). What mentions there are of trade seem very rudimentary (Floating wine barrels down a river is no basis for a sound economy). And his quasi-medieval governmental structures do not advance beyond a very basic, conservative and one-dimensional view of the monarchy and the bare mention of feudal lords in vassalage to the king (even the Gondorion stewardship seems preposterous, given the hundreds of years of ruling stewards without a change in title or a palace coup).

And that, ladies and gentleman, is one of the few things that really irks me about Middle-earth chronology: its stagnance. Thousands of years without any real political or societal change (and it could be said that Gondorion rule was indeed Numenorean rule with only a change of the ruling seat). There is little change in technology (unless you refer to the numerous anachronisms in the Hobbit), and warfare does not advance along technological lines (like the absence of plate armor and the use of gunpowder only after 3 full Ages of Middle-earth history). The interminable stasis over many millenia for me seems rather unbelievable (and for a fantasy, suspension of disbelief is paramount).

I suppose I am nitpicking...but that's what Tolkien discussion forums (or fora) are for. If not here, where else?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

warfare does not advance along technological lines (like the absence of plate armor and the use of gunpowder only after 3 full Ages of Middle-earth history). The interminable stasis over many millenia for me seems rather unbelievable (and for a fantasy, suspension of disbelief is paramount).

How long did it take us humans to invent gunpowder?

But yes, that is good point. In fact, technology seems to have gone downhill (though in the early middle ages that did happen too).

[Macalaure]

There is little change in technology (unless you refer to the numerous anachronisms in the Hobbit), and warfare does not advance along technological lines (like the absence of plate armor and the use of gunpowder only after 3 full Ages of Middle-earth history).

Keep in mind that it took humanity about 4000 years from the first Pyramids in Egypt (27th century BC) to the use of gunpowder in Europe (about 13th century AD). With the first three ages lasting about 7000 years, that makes Middle-earth only about twice as stagnant as reality.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

How long did it take us humans to invent gunpowder?

But yes, that is good point. In fact, technology seems to have gone downhill (though in the early middle ages that did happen too).

Well, it is said that the Chinese invented gunpowder in the 9th Century. They also invented the compass, paper and printing long before the Western World. Yet Chinese culture, like western culture, also for a time 'stopped' developing new technology. Perhaps this is a feature of human cultures that Tolkien emulated (and drew out through the ages)? Did Egyptian and Indian cultures also experience this lack of technological development? (It didn't stop them from creating monumental structures of great power and beauty.)

The other point to consider is the stagnation of elven culture and the possibility that this influenced the cultures of Men and Hobbits and Dwarves. We don't hear of compasses or printing in Middle-earth and while hobbits and men do have books, we don't know what the pages consist of. Certainly the inferrence is that they are hand printed. All in all, Middle-earth is a world very circumspect of technology, as was Tolkien himself. It could possibly be argued that it is an alternate world view, just as we now have the genre of alternate histories.

EDIT: cross-posted with Macalaure. Oh that pesky interrrupting invention, the telephone.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Keep in mind that it took humanity about 4000 years from the first Pyramids in Egypt (27th century BC) to the use of gunpowder in Europe (about 13th century AD). With the first three ages lasting about 7000 years, that makes Middle-earth only about twice as stagnant as reality.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The other point to consider is the stagnation of elven culture and the possibility that this influenced the cultures of Men and Hobbits and Dwarves. We don't hear of compasses or printing in Middle-earth and while hobbits and men do have books, we don't know what the pages consist of. Certainly the inferrence is that they are hand printed. All in all, Middle-earth is a world very circumspect of technology, as was Tolkien himself. It could possibly be argued that it is an alternate world view, just as we now have the genre of alternate histories.

Yes, yes...I am aware of the approximate differences in Middle-earth history as opposed to real-world history; however, the Elvish Culture, no matter how conservative and stagnant their society, should've blundered on inventions merely by continuous observation (a building block of the scientific method), that would be unavailable to pre-literate or early literate civilizations (such as the Sumerians or Egyptians), where the lifespan of a man/woman probably did not exceed 40 years (except for mythic 900 year-old biblical patriarchs). Additonally, the Elves, particularly the Noldor, had advanced training in Valinor very early on in their history (it's not like a centuries-long hit or miss method of discovering cuneiform for Hammurabi). Also, the dwarves, whose lifespans often hit the 300 mark, and were well known for their craftsmanship, commerce and business acuity, actually had their skills retard over time and continued puttering with mail.

All I'm saying is that one of Tolkien's strengths -- a great, sweeping panorama of time -- is also one of his weaknesses from a storyline perspective: an immense amount of time where basically nothing happens. Personally, I think a bit of time compression would have suited the plot better, or at least it would not have hurt the story and gave it more of a sense of believable continuity.

[skip spence]

A few things I'd like to add...

Firstly, although I agree that the technological and cultural entropy of Tolkien's world is quite unrealistic, it is also very poetic and on the whole I thinks it adds rather than detracts from my enjoyment of his works. I quite like the idea of a golden age when the world was magical and mythical, when there was beauty and craftmanship unsurpassed, when the grass was greener, the sky more blue and the mountains taller and more majestic.

Secondly, there is in fact an indication of printing presses in the Shire as Bilbo is reading a newspaper when Galdalf first arrives although in truth JRRT would have regretted this anachronism later on when his legendarium became more developed.

Thirdly, while there are no guns in ME there are two instances in LotR where a form of gunpowder presumably is used. The first one is Gandalf's fireworks, the other one is during the siege of Helm's Deep (as seen in the movies).

I've also wondered why the likes of Melkor and Sauron couldn't or didn't help their minions develop better weaponry and such. The armies of the bad guys always seem to be have poorer equpiment than the good guys where IMO it should have been the opposite way around. Take Melkor for instance. He was said to have had a part of the gifts of all his Valar brethren and to have been the greatest of them all in terms of power, although much of it was later spent. His first priority would also have been to conjure up a way to win the war. I would think he should've had the brains to invent some decent weapons for his minions, such as the machinegun, the mustard gas or the anti-personel mine.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I've also wondered why the likes of Melkor and Sauron couldn't or didn't help their minions develop better weaponry and such. The armies of the bad guys always seem to be have poorer equpiment than the good guys where IMO it should have been the opposite way around.

Well, that is a good point. Though If we're going on about no new technology, we must ask ouselves: What are the Rings of Power? What is the Ring? All technology. They weren't made in the "golden age". And I don't think the palantirs were either. And anyway, if we could go by the path of magic or technology, which would you go by? Many ancient civilisations wet for magic. It is only the ones that went for both (as they were so prosperous) that are remembered as "great". Whether their magic worked or not is another question. I don't believe it did, but that doesn't mean that didn't think it didn't, or that it was a pointless waste of time.
And all the people in positions to create better technology had magic. Take Gandalf ( he was a Maia, but anyway) for example. Insted of rubbing two sticks together (or later using a tinderbox) he could just make fire appear (and anyway, I think anyone, (well, maybe not anyone) could make fire wearing his ring) by saying a few words. No need to go through all the hassle of inventing matches and that sort of stuff (and later on, lighters- after all, he was immortal). And he would start a whole chemical industry, which somehow doesn't seem like the sort of person he is. And with a life of travelling (He was not called the Grey Pilgrim for nothing) how could he use an oven? Invention relies on those that have the knowledge of how to make something, and more importantly, having a reason to invent something like that, a driving need, or at least for the thing to have a purpose (especially very long ago). At leastthe person had to have an idea of something that had not yet been done, or as easily. It seems to me that a lighter is a step back from a ring that can allow you to make fire, never runs oout, and isn't bad for the environment (at least in the case of the ring itself). I just think that there was no need for him to make something for a purpose, when somethinng he already had could do it better.
Take Numenoreans. Men at their best. They would need to find some way to see and communicate with the rest of the world. They would be in a perfect postion to invent something But they already had the palantirs, which are still more advanced by anything we have. Hands-free .
Anyway, given the choice between magic and technology, I would go for magic. Much more immediate results. It either works or doesn't. Technology takes years for sometimes even the smallest part of an invention to be developed. And if all the "magic" was actually highly advanced technology, then who could hope to match that later on, and doesn't that prove that things were invented anyway?