Rhovanion, Rhun, Khand and Harad

[Gareth Yaztromo]

Were these actually names of countries ruled by some form of government? Or are they loose terms used to describe land areas, where various nomad people lived? I know the word Rhun is translated as "east" and Harad as "south land".

[Zakath]

The people there weren't necessarily nomads...but Tolkien never gave us information on what type of goverments they used. Rhovanion at least was a kingdom for a while, though by the time of the Lord of the Rings it no longer existed.

There were (large) groups of people living in those areas of course...the Easterlings and Southrons. The Southrons at least had control of the port city of Umbar...whether or not they had other cities, countries, or governments isn't known (and may not have been known the people of the North West, either).

[Folcwine]

I've always assumed that "Rhovanion" was an Elvish name (with the same meaning) for what was known in the Westron as "The Wilderland".

Personally I've always seen Rhovanion as something much like what the Roman Empire called 'Germania'. A large region without one centralized government, but rather a loosely confederated association of independant tribes, united by a common language and culture.

[TulKas]

Sounds like Gondor, Mordor, Rohan, or any other "country" from LotR...

[dried-mango]

Personally I've always seen Rhovanion as something much like what the Roman Empire called 'Germania'. A large region without one centralized government, but rather a loosely confederated association of independant tribes, united by a common language and culture.

I seem to recall that there was a 'king' of Rhovanion, whose daughter married a prince of Gondor when he was living there in exile. Of course, said king could merely be the chieftain of one of the many tribes in Rhovanion as suggested by Folcwine. So a Rhovanion kingdom may or may not be a possibility.

[Folcwine]

Sounds like Gondor, Mordor, Rohan, or any other "country" from LotR...

What,
you believe that those "countries" didn't have centralized governments???

[Gareth Yaztromo]

I mentioned it in another post but I'll bring it up here too, if the Avari still dwelt in the east/south in Rhun, Khand and Harad they would of have to of been very a hidden people as they were living in "enemy territory".

Same with the Blue Wizards; Alatar and Palando. Actually I had a little idea of writing a Tolkien fan fic based on those two wizards *L*. Palando finds himself a position in the Haradrim court of Umbar as the Vizier's advisor (but really undercover for the Istari, trying to sway the people to abandon Morgoth-worship and allience with the West). And Alatar found himself in Rhun, living with a nomadic Easterling rebel tribe in some kind of Mongol/Hun-like mobile village, where he befriended the people and was also stirring up rebellion. Hehehe ok I got a little side-tracked...

[TulKas]

Not really... Mordor is kind of a good example. Obviously the various "tribes" of Orcs and the mountain trolls and whatnot didn't get along. They were from different "provinces" of their country. Sauron obviously ruled them all, but it wasn't exactly organized.

Gondor is a bit different... Gondor is more like a bunch of city-states with a steward at the central city. The knights of Dol Amroth obviously had their own heirarchy, with princes and whatnot within their own part of Gondor.

IMO another example is the Elves. While they're more spread out, it's a similar instance without the steward. Instead there is a council holding together all the different and independent nations.

Just my opinion

[dried-mango]

I think if we define the term 'centralised government' loosely, then Mordor, Gondor and Rohan would certainly be considered as sovereign states governed by a central authority. If we examine all three case by case:

1) Mordor. While Tulkas has a valid point that Mordor was comprised of many Orc 'tribes' (to use his term) that did not follow a single Orc leader or an oligarchy of Orc leaders, they all owed their allegience and were subservient to Sauron, their king in all respects. This strongly suggests that Mordor was, if not in the conventional sense, a monarchy where Sauron ruled as 'head of state' with absolute power. Whether the system was 'disorganised' or not does not detract from the fact that Sauron was at the top of the authority hierarchy; furthermore no Orc 'tribe' was autonomous and this lack of independence on the part of the many Orc tribes shows that the government of Mordor was indeed central in nature.

2) Gondor. The principality of Dol Amroth did indeed have its own ruling house, but the rulers of Dol Amroth in turn owed allegience to the Stewards (or prior to Mardil, the Kings) of Gondor, who were essentially their overlords and head of state. The Prince of Dol Amroth was comparable to a medieval duke who ruled over a duchy but was still answerable to his king. As with Mordor, the absence of completely independent states within the nation of Gondor lends credence to the idea that Gondor did indeed have a centralised government based in its capital Minas Tirith.

3) Rohan. This nation without a doubt adopted a centralised form of government since it was a monarchy. The king of Rohan ruled from his seat at Edoras and although we have examples of lords who presided over strongholds elsewhere in Rohan (ie. Helm's Deep), nevertheless they did not hold complete authority and were still subservient to the king. Monarchies are one of the many forms of government that are centralised in nature, simply for the fact that all state power ultimately rested in the hands of one individual.

[Folcwine]

Word!

[TulKas]

My third example was Elves, not Rohan

[dried-mango]

My third example was Elves, not Rohan

Tulkas, my previous post was not in direct answer to yours, rather it was my own contribution to the discussion with the purpose of clarifying certain points brought up by other posters. Perhaps a little less ego on your part would help to avoid any future misunderstandings.

As a race, the Elves did not appear to follow only one kind of government. While monarchies existed in Lothlorien and Mirkwood (and possibly the Havens, since Cirdan, while not a king, was the sole 'ruler' of the Havens), there also existed independant bands of Elves who wandered ME. These Elves seemed to acknowledge no authority other than their own outside of the aforementioned Elven realms. Within these realms however, I suppose that they, like any outsider, would submit to the decrees of the ruling Elves.

As for the idea of the White Council (presumably) controlling the affairs of the Elves, I disagree with this mainly on the basis that the White Council served a discussive role, not a governing one. The White Council did not dictate policy or enforce laws, but rather served as a meeting point for its members in an emergency to discuss important matters and to decide on any necessary course of action. In a nutshell the Council did not 'rule' or govern any state or people.

[Beorn]

Then you have the other woodsman and the like that seemed to be sort of autonomous collectives, i.e. the people at the Sea of Rhun (later enslaved). I'm sure Sauron kept tight check on Orcs in the area (I'm sure they just loved marching off into certain death, but I imagine they needed som *ahem* persuasion?), and I think he had demanded a tribute from Rohan (denied, of course). The Shire had something of an honorary governing body, but they got on well enough that it really wasn't necessary. The dwarves are dispersed for the most part at the end of LOTR, but at their height they had something of 'city-states' ruled by a "King" (Thror, Durin, et al), similar to Elven strongholds such as Gondolin. Each had their respective ruler, but the power was not consolidated.

[TulKas]

mango>>I think I just assumed you were using the same three examples as I was based on your using the same form to list them, the name number of nations, and the mention of my name right after saying you'll "examine all three cases"

Anyway tho, I was thinking about using Rohan as my third example as well, and I was sure I didn't... I probably wouldn't have said anything had I not been considering using Rohan myself

Beorn>>Actually, Rohan did at one point give some of its horses to Sauron

[Beorn]

I beg to differ:

"Then you do not pay tribute to Sauron?" said Gimli.
"We do not and we never have," said Eomer with a flash of his eyes; "though it comes to my ears that that lie has been told. Some years ago the Lord of the Black Land wished to purchase horses of us at great price, but we refused him, for he puts beasts to evil use.
- The Two Towers; The Riders of Rohan

[dried-mango]

The dwarves are dispersed for the most part at the end of LOTR, but at their height they had something of 'city-states' ruled by a "King" (Thror, Durin, et al), similar to Elven strongholds such as Gondolin. Each had their respective ruler, but the power was not consolidated.

My memory fails me, but wasn't there a Dwarven High King who was of the House of Durin and resided at Khazad-dum? IIRC the High King was the chief sovereign of the Dwarven people as a whole. But I could be mistaken, seeing as how there were seven royal Houses, six of which were not mentioned in either LoTR or the Sil.

Unless of course the title of 'High King of Durin's House' meant exactly that; that he was only the High King of the Dwarves of Durin's House and thus had no authority over the Dwarves of other Houses.

[Zakath]

No, the lord of Khazad Dum was simply the High King of Durin's House...nothing more (note the tale of the Battle of Nanduhirion, where Dwarves of other houses inform ?Thror? that Khazad Dum was not their ancestral home).

[dried-mango]

Aaah, yes Zakath, I remember that passage. How snobbish they were too. *hmmph*

So yes, my final thoughts are confirmed. Much thanks.