[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I've been a student of history myself from time to time, so I ought to give some sort of response to this question.

As several people have already pointed out, actual history (perhaps I should say 'past events') have shaped every aspect of the world we inhabit. Every law, custom and national border exists in its current form because historical events and decisions made them so. The structure and vocabulary of every language, and the groups of people who speak those languages are as they are because of historical events, and fictional history will never have that connection with our everyday lives. More significantly, real history is re-evaluated on a regular basis as new facts emerge or new theories and methods develop. Each generation of historians approaches the basic matter of history from a different perspective, identifying different aspects as important, or overturning old suppositions with new research. History, therefore, exists in a constant state of dialogue with the present. There is no one definitive version of events and there never can be.

Tolkien's history is not a dialogue. It's a monologue from Tolkien to his audience. Unless new material from Tolkien emerges, the events and their significance remain as they stand. Nobody will ever be able to trace a place-name back to the Fourth Age, because the Fourth Age never happened. Comparison of Gondorian and Elvish records with those of their enemies will never be possible because Tolkien only wrote one side of the story. More than that, he wrote in such a way that we know Sauron's perspective to be morally bankrupt. That will never be true of the real world: no real society or person has a monopoly on truth or virtue.

Therefore, as Saucepan Man pointed out, the history of Middle-earth has only a personal significance, or significance within the context of Tolkien's fiction. Real history has universal significance: its facts and their interpretation directly affect how we see one another and the world in general. Even the language I am using has risen to prominence by historical accident, and the fact of its ubiquitousness will affect the history of the future. There will never be a real political problem caused by the creation of Rohan, but the opposite is true of real countries. Real history is an integral part of our lives, Tolkienian history is an integral part of some works of fiction.

I have never noticed a great difference between approaches to history in Europe and the Americas. The United States does tend to mythologise its own history, but Britain is no different. Most people know that the leader of the Boston Tea Party had a cellar full of contraband tea, which he proceeded to sell at an inflated rate once the competition were out of business; but similarly, Richard the Lionheart hated England, refused to speak English and scarcely visited the country during his reign. Not only that, but his entire career consisted in fighting a holy war against a more advanced society, which he lost. People in general like a nice, heroic past that shows their own society in a positive light, and no amount of ruined castles and ancient country houses will ever change that. Perhaps if the international film industry had found its base in London instead of Los Angeles British people would still be talking with pride of the Pax Britannica, and burning Napoleon in effigy, but I suppose that would be a 'what if?' I'll say this for Tolkienian historiography: as far as I know it hasn't killed anyone yet.