I think Middle-earth is Middle-earth and it doesn't really have very much correspondence to our own world; we'd be pushing it a bit to forge too many links. But you can have some fun with it, and indeed, some things seem to be clear comparisons. One of those might be the comparison with the development of Rohirric culture, who seem to be on the cusp of developing a literary culture similar to that of the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse.
I've heard a few arguments that you can compare the history of Middle-earth with the history of the British Isles. The broad gist is as follows:
First Age is like the early history of the islands, when they are still linked to the continent. This is when the founding races emerge as the Britons and people have free movement (akin to the free movement found in Beleriand and the wider lands of Middle-earth). Sea levels are lower, and there are many land bridges (as in Arda, there is the Helcaraxe linking Valinor and Beleriand); people can go west and return east and vice versa. Then the seas rise and the land is cut off, plus many lands are lost. I've heard claims that Middle-earth and Valinor are similar to Britain and Ireland.
Second Age sees the flowering of a great culture akin to Celtic culture, but which also brought seafaring 'empire builders' and expansionists from various tribes - Gaels, Picts, Scots, Belgae (like Black Numenoreans). At this time there is archaeological evidence that there were a number of great settlements to the west, a land mass stretching from Cornwall down to the Scillies, and Wales was larger. Possible origins of Lyonnesse and Atlantis myths? Also similar to the existence of Numenor as these were eventually lost to the sea.
Third Age brings more cultural shifts as the land mass settles into what we know of it today. Romans arrive and establish Romano-British cultures (Gondor?), as this fades it becomes more tribal and we enter the so-called Dark Ages (which weren't dark in Britain at any rate - we had King Arthur and all the early saints and yes, literature too - it's only the hegemony of Classical education that has us thinking those times were 'dark' just because Rome had fallen! Tch!). There are strong small nations such as Rheged and Elmet (similar to Rhudaur and Cardolan - if you look up the histories of these nations you could be forgiven for thinking Tolkien had taken his inspiration directly from them in creating the various feuds of Arnor), then we see other cultures arriving such as the Norse and Saxon (Rohirric). What's Mordor though? The Normans?
I've heard some interesting arguments that the whole of the history of Middle-earth is broadly concurrent with the mythical history of Ireland too. I suppose you can apply it in any way, given the immense scope of human history!
The main thing which shows us though that Middle-earth is not concurrent with human history is that in Tolkien's world there are simply not the big cultural differences over time that there are in genuine history. Culture (certainly if you look at the Elves and at Gondor) has shifted little over many thousands of years whereas in the real world it shifts dramatically. The only 'shifts' you get in Middle-earth is the emergence and dying out of cultures.