could any of the kingdoms at middle earth attack the southern continents?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Tolkien does not provide enough information. From an historical perspective, lands are conquered so that natural resources can be exploited: whether that means fertile land to feed an expanding population; the availability of rich lodes of precious metal, iron ore or coal; some other tangible and tradeable goods (like rare spices, as someone mentioned); or sometimes the people of a certain region are exploitable goods for the slave trade.

Or simply because it was the sort of thing kings felt they were expected to do. If they were good at it, they got nifty epithets like "the Great" or "the Conqueror."

(If you don't believe me, look at all the blood and treasure that centuries' worth of Persian and Roman emperors poured into taking Armenia off one another- despite the fact that there's not a damn thing there worth 'exploiting')

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Or simply because it was the sort of thing kings felt they were expected to do. If they were good at it, they got nifty epithets like "the Great" or "the Conqueror."

(If you don't believe me, look at all the blood and treasure that centuries' worth of Persian and Roman emperors poured into taking Armenia off one another- despite the fact that there's not a damn thing there worth 'exploiting')

True, WCH, but Armenia at least has habitable land, whereas a desert is a desert. The only difference in the sand of Near Harad and Far Harad is proximity

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

True, WCH, but Armenia at least has habitable land, whereas a desert is a desert. The only difference in the sand of Near Harad and Far Harad is proximity

Well, I wouldn't say Harad is entirely desert, since plainly it supports a population, one large enough to form and equip large expeditionary armies- and even to support Mumakil. It might rather be equated to North Africa in classical times, which was not yet all desert (and even had wild elephants)

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Well, I wouldn't say Harad is entirely desert, since plainly it supports a population, one large enough to form and equip large expeditionary armies- and even to support Mumakil. It might rather be equated to North Africa in classical times, which was not yet all desert (and even had wild elephants)

An ironic comparision, considering that exploitation of North Africa's resources by larger foreign empires is often considered a major factor in North Africa BECOMING a desert ( several thousand years of plances like Greece, Ancient Palestine and Rome chopping down whole forests to provide themselves with timber for ships and buildings and collecting masses of the Barbary Lions and Atlas Bears for thier shows)