This is topic Why only two kingdoms of the Dúnedain? in forum History of Middle-earth at Minas Tirith Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.minastirith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000160

Posted by Éomer Éadig (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
After the destruction of Númenor, two Dúnedain kingdoms were founded in Middle-earth: Arnor, ruled by Elendil, and Gondor, jointly ruled by Isildur and Anarion, though under the rule of Elendil, who was High King.

My question is, why did Isildur and Anarion found one kingdom together, rather than both of them founding their own, creating three kingdoms of the Dúnedain rather than only two? It just makes more sense to me.
 
Posted by Andúril (Citizen # 2564) on :
 
There was a forum abou thtis a while back, anybody remember what it was called?
 
Posted by Earendilyon (Citizen # 322) on :
 
I guess there wer too little Numenoreans to people more than two kingdoms. Besides, this were to two areas where the Numenoreans had colonies before the downfall of their island; so they felt (sp?) more at home there, I guess.
 
Posted by Thorin (Citizen # 816) on :
 
Isildur the rebel

That is a topic from the Silmarillion thread that I started some time ago. It talks a bit about the creation of multiple kingdoms after the drowning of Numenor. Maybe that will help some.
 
Posted by Éomer Éadig (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
Hmm, interesting read. Thanks, Thorin.

I still think a lot of those problems between Isildur and Anarion would have been solved by just founding a third kingdom instead. Why didn't one of them (most likely Anarion) sail further up the Anduin and create a kingdom that would border Mordor on the north, which would pretty much effectively contain Sauron if he ever came back (which he did, obviously)?
 
Posted by Earendilyon (Citizen # 322) on :
 
Just yesterday evening, I read the last part of the Silm, about the Three Rings and such. There's also told how the Numenoreans came to Middle Earth after the downfall of Numenor. Elendil landed with his group in the North and founded there Arnor, in cooperation wth Gig-galad and Elrond. Isildur and Anarion were washed ashore at the Mouth of Anduin, and were welcomed ther by the local population of Numenorean colonists and other humans.
Since Gondor was a wide land and they had also to guard Mordor, but were with not that many people, it seems logical to me that they stayed together and founded one Kingdom between the both of them.
I guess Isildur had the major part of guarding Mordor, since his city was Minas Ithil, whilst Anarion probably had the major part of ruling the rest of Gondor. (Just my ideas, though.)
 
Posted by Thorin (Citizen # 816) on :
 
One thing that may have a bearing on this is the location of Numenorean colonies, which we have slightly touched upon.

The King's Men had colonies in Umbar, correct? And most of the Faithful had colonies to the North so they could have contact with Gil-galad. We know that there were colonies previously at Tharbad. I assume that the Faithful regularly used the Havens as their harbor when they went to see Gil-galad. I think I remember reading that there were colonies around the mouth of the Anduin.

Perhaps, if Tharbad was destroyed by this time, the escaping Elendil and his sons just sailed for existing colonies or havens? If there were only two "Faithful" colonies (Anduin and north of Tharbad) prior to the Drowning, then it would make sense to build them up. Hence two kingdoms. A little help, anyone?
 
Posted by Isildur of Númenórë (Citizen # 1494) on :
 
quote:
The Third Age

2912 Great floods devastate Enedwaith and Minhiriath. Tharbad is ruined and deserted.


 
Posted by Earendilyon (Citizen # 322) on :
 
Remember that they were driven by enourmous waves to Middle Earth! The waves were that big, that the ships even rose to above the clouds (IIRC)! Also, their ships were all but destroyed by the violence of the waves. I think they had little say about where they would land in ME. Maybe they saw their landing at those two spots as a kind of order of the Valar to found Kingdoms there (apart from the other reasons mentionned earlier).
 
Posted by Citizen 2612 (Citizen # 2612) on :
 
Part of it I think, was attributed to circumstance by the destruction of Numenor, and the separation of the Faithful who landed upon Middle Earth.

Strategically, it is comparable to the situation the Roman Empire faced durin the 3rd century AD, and thus, the creation of two kingdoms would have been strategically sound.

Yet, they were never one kingdom, they hd always been separate, even before Mordor had begun to press against Gondor...
 
Posted by Thorin (Citizen # 816) on :
 
Would anyone consider Harad a Dunedain Kingdom? It was peopled by some Kings Men > Black Numenoreans. I think the percentage of Numenoreans in the population was very small, but some did rise to positions of power.
 
Posted by Captain of Gondor (Citizen # 5254) on :
 
My thoughts is this (I apologize in advance if I acidentilly say what other people have said.)

When the two kingdoms were set up, Middle Earth was in turmoil. The setting up of two kingdoms was, as said before, militarily sound. If one kingdom fell, the other would still stand. If it had been one large kingdom, then, their enemies could have just attacked the kingdom, and ruined it in one fell stroke. However, with the spliting of the kingdoms, it allowed the two to be more easily governed. One large kingdom would be harder to govern then two smaller ones with lords over them.
An invader would have two problems. One, if they stormed one kingdom, then, the other would swoop in once called for and then the two armies could gain up on them and destroy them.
Two, if they did attack both kingdoms at the same time, they would have to split up their otherwise massive armies into smaller armies to deal with both kingdoms. Those armies could be easily destroyed in detail.
One last thing was the creation of two kingdoms forced all enemies who decided to strike both at the same time into having to build bigger armies, thus draining man power. Either way, this was militarilly secure. This is probably why they set up two. []

[ 01-05-2007, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Captain of Gondor ]
 
Posted by Varnafindë (Citizen # 4097) on :
 
Captain of Gondor, this is the answer to 'why were there two kingdoms and not one'. But why only two kingdoms, not three?
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
It is also possible that tradition ruled the day. A sibling ten years younger such as Anarion may not have qualified to rule his own kingdom and may only have been co-king at Isildur's sufferance or Elendil's insistence. A search of Letters hasn't turned up anything.
 
Posted by HamfastGamgee (Citizen # 5528) on :
 
I'm not einterely convinced that having two kingdoms was a wise idea. It seemed to allow the Witch-king to pick off Arnor and Arthedian while Gondor was too preoccupied to help. Also it was a long time before the two realms realized that the assaults against them came from the same source.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
It's been established that they had no choice where they landed in Middle Earth. The question is merely about administrations.

If Isildur and Anarion had led their people by land to Arnor to swell their father's realm, then who holds Gondor against Mordor?

If Elendil brings his people south to Gondor, who is to help hold the north against enemies there?

They basically had no choice but to have at least two kingdoms under one high king. It may have been better, though, if they had three.

As it turns out , what they did worked. They were able to form the Last Alliance and defeat Sauron. If not for Isildur's failure to destroy the Ring, that dual-kingdom would have been hailed as the great success of the age.

[ 01-07-2007, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: The Dread Pirate Roberts ]
 
Posted by Eluchil (Citizen # 5432) on :
 
quote:
If Elendil brings his people south to Gondor, what's to stop the Witch-King from harrying the north even moreso?
Elendil's death : 3441 2A.
Establishment of Angmar : c. 1300 3A.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Yes, but you ignore the time-travel characteristics of the rings of pow. . .

. . . my bad []

[mistake edited]

[ 01-07-2007, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: The Dread Pirate Roberts ]
 
Posted by Captain of Gondor (Citizen # 5254) on :
 
This is my theory to why only two. They dare not expand any further then they had to. Middle Earth was still mostly unkown and they didn't want to run into any more trouble then need be. They only wished two build two since then they wouldn't have to expand more, and, there would only need be an hier to each of the thrones.

[ 01-08-2007, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Captain of Gondor ]
 
Posted by BaneofDarkness (Citizen # 5808) on :
 
Captain of Gondor basically got it a few posts back. In case one fell, they would have another, or perhaps Anarion and Isildur didn't want to split up another kingdom in fear they would come to discord, or maybe because they wanted things more centralized. But it was most likely due to the lack of population, and the distribution of troops, since there didn't seem to be enough to inhabit three kingdoms.
 
Posted by Prince Imrahil (Citizen # 5425) on :
 
Remember what happened when Arnor broke up? That's why two instead of three, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Easier to divide and conquer when they're doing the dividing on their own, eh? Makes sense.
 
Posted by HamfastGamgee (Citizen # 5528) on :
 
Well, on the one hand, it did seem that in the third age, the Witch-king was able to attack Arnor without much aid (at first) from Gondor, and indeed was able to corrupt the men of Rhudur without Gondor been aware, also, remember that Aragorn seemed very keen on re-uniting the two kingdoms when he came to the throne.
On the other I will agree that the territory does seem very large to have one ruler over it all. It would seem only natural for it to dispearse into different parts.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
I think the two Kingdoms was done due to the distance between them. There was no need to have three except to have the sons of Elendil rule one each. That sort of division was not needed nor would it have served any purpose than to divide the brothers.As has been pointed out by Prince Imrahil, Arnor didn't fare too well when it was divided up into Rhuadur, Cardolan, and Arthedain for the three brothers.
 
Posted by Hamfast Gamgee (Citizen # 5528) on :
 
In a discussion in another place, I just noticed that there was not one name given for the whole of what would be Aragorn's realm together. Did Gondor and Arnor ever have a joint name? The NEU? Numereon exile union in case you where wondering!
 
Posted by The Flammifer (Citizen # 11407) on :
 
The Reunited Kingdom . . .

Included both Arnor and Gondor, and ruled by Elessar

[ 01-18-2017, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: The Flammifer ]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Two were too much as it were.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.6.1