Quote:
Originally Posted by Morthoron
The Irish curse Cromwell to this day, even though he died in 1658. The Irish hate for the English and for their usurpation of Ireland goes back to the Norman Invasion. There is still an undercurrent of animosity between the Republicans and Unionists in Northern Ireland.
So, I would say the Dunlending disdain for Rohan is not without real world precedent.
|
That's correct. Those ideologies do exist in the real world and I never argued otherwise.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ivriniel
But, Leaf ownership, sovereignty, territoriality as characterise by Tolkien it seems to me were central tenets used to explain the tensions between the Dunlendings, the Dunedain, Numenor and Rohan. Longstanding gripes over land ownership. I wonder if the Dunlendings were expected to pay taxes to Gondor and Arnor for example, during -- as Dunlendings would have put it -- "the occupation".
Dunlendings were antagonistic to Rohan and Dunedain and the conflict emphasised jealousies and conflict over sovereignty of the region.
|
Yes, those categories are indeed important to understand the conflict. I merely wanted to point out that those categories are highly ideologized and man-made and not some sort of ontological law of (human) nature.
My goal was simply to shift the focus of the discussion away from alleged "legitimacy" of territorial claims.
There are some quotes from the Silmarillion I'd like to add to the discussion. They touch the subject of different ideas and concepts of ownership and sovereignty. The first bit is from the dialogue between Eöl and Turgon:
"
But Eöl withdrew his hand. 'I acknowledge not your law,' he said. 'No right have you or any of your kin in this land to seize realms or to set bounds, either here or there. This is the land of the Teleri, to which you bring war and all unquiet, dealing ever proudly and unjustly.[...]"
Eöl denies Turgon's claim because he isn't a kinsman of the Teleri. He ties dominion and sovereignty to blood. Here's Turgon's response:
"
'I will not debate with you. Dark Elf. By the swords of the Noldor alone are your sunless woods defended. Your freedom to wander there wild you owe to my kin; and but for them long since you would have laboured in thraldom in the pits of Angband. And here I am King; and weather you will it or will it not, my doom is law. [...]"
Turgon stresses the practical side of political rulership and elucidates Eöl about the conjunction between sovereignty and force.
There's another part with a similar topic, Thingol's message to the Noldor princes: "
'Thus shall you speak for me to those that sent you. In Hithlum the Noldor have leave to dwell, and in the highlands of Dorthonion, and in the lands east of Doriath that are empty and wild; but elsewhere there are many of my people, and I would not have them restrained of their freedom, still less ousted from their homes. Beware therefore how you princes of the West bear yourselves; for I am the Lord of Beleriand, and all who seek to dwell there shall hear my word. Into Doriath none shall come to abide but only such as I call guest, or who seek me in great need.'"
Maedhros' answer: "
'A King is he that can hold is own, or eke his title is vain. Thingol does but grant us lands where his power does not run. Indeed Doriath alone would be his realm this day, but for the coming of the Noldor. Therefore in Doriath let him reign, and be glad that he has the sons of Finwë for his neighbours, not the Orcs of Morgoth that we found. Elsewhere it shall go as seems good to us.'"