Oh wow. I have never thought of Tùrin this way. Now I'm thinking that the elven socities, well into the Third Age, could not "develop" (from a human perspective) into medieval kingdoms like Gondor since the elves lived too long and remembered too much to form a national identity. They, in a sense, still lived in an enlarged tribal states.
That’s a fascinating concept; I wonder if we could call Tolkien’s elvish kingdoms underdeveloped. We probably can. They lack a lot of the specificity we see Tolkien give to the likes of Gondor and Rohan. I’ve always felt the Elves feel like they’re out of folklore and the Men feel like they’re out of history—which makes sense, given that humans exist in the real world. But more than that, the Elves function a bit like forces of nature: their customs are more or less unchanging, and while they have distinctions and a history of divisions and subdivisions (the Eldar, the Noldor, etc.), these groups do look more like permanent tribal groups than settled, developed state institutions… This is a fascinating thing to think about… Thanks for provoking the thought, Hyun Woo.
My memory is rusty since the last time I read the Silmarillion and the History of the Middle-earth series was when I was a teenager, but now I find it strangely convenient that Elves beget so few children. They live by centuries and are immune to illness. An Elf couple could bear hundreds of kids if they wanted to, not having to worry about anything like childbed fever. However, I cannot remember any Elf who had more children than Fëanor did. Could this have been intentional, as it happens with tribes living in isolated settings? Instead of being forced to produce more, starting class struggles for the surplus products, and ending up with the rise of developed polities, it seems they chose to stay in their prehistoric state.
This is an excellent breakdown of the complexities of pre-modern rulership. Kings, kingdoms, and the concepts of what a nation is are a world apart from how most conceptualize them today. I can say for myself that I don't often dig deep into the functions of governments in my fantasy stories partly for this reason, though in larger part it's simply due to my particular focus usually being away from the rulers of these worlds.
I'm curious what you mean by "this period?" There was quite(!) a bit of migration in the 4th - 6th centuries, but migration does not mean "replacement." Not by a long shot. But any "Gaul" who lived under Clovis's kingdom would have had a lot more in common with a fellow 5th century Roman (for all Gauls, by then, were Roman) than they would with a 1st century BC Gaul. Eventually "Gaul" as a distinct identity simply disappeared, and that happened *right around* the time that that geographic area was increasingly known not as Gallia, but as Frankia. The timing of that shift is no coincidence, and that's my whole point.
Oh wow. I have never thought of Tùrin this way. Now I'm thinking that the elven socities, well into the Third Age, could not "develop" (from a human perspective) into medieval kingdoms like Gondor since the elves lived too long and remembered too much to form a national identity. They, in a sense, still lived in an enlarged tribal states.
That’s a fascinating concept; I wonder if we could call Tolkien’s elvish kingdoms underdeveloped. We probably can. They lack a lot of the specificity we see Tolkien give to the likes of Gondor and Rohan. I’ve always felt the Elves feel like they’re out of folklore and the Men feel like they’re out of history—which makes sense, given that humans exist in the real world. But more than that, the Elves function a bit like forces of nature: their customs are more or less unchanging, and while they have distinctions and a history of divisions and subdivisions (the Eldar, the Noldor, etc.), these groups do look more like permanent tribal groups than settled, developed state institutions… This is a fascinating thing to think about… Thanks for provoking the thought, Hyun Woo.
My memory is rusty since the last time I read the Silmarillion and the History of the Middle-earth series was when I was a teenager, but now I find it strangely convenient that Elves beget so few children. They live by centuries and are immune to illness. An Elf couple could bear hundreds of kids if they wanted to, not having to worry about anything like childbed fever. However, I cannot remember any Elf who had more children than Fëanor did. Could this have been intentional, as it happens with tribes living in isolated settings? Instead of being forced to produce more, starting class struggles for the surplus products, and ending up with the rise of developed polities, it seems they chose to stay in their prehistoric state.
"Supreme executive power resides in a mandate from the masses, not some watery tart..."
“I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!”
"Come see the violence inherent in the system....Help, I'm being repressed!...."
Bloody peasants.
A fantastic dive into two concepts we often see, but don't usually understand how they came to be. Thanks for the history lesson.
You're welcome, Andrew! Thanks for reading.
This is an excellent breakdown of the complexities of pre-modern rulership. Kings, kingdoms, and the concepts of what a nation is are a world apart from how most conceptualize them today. I can say for myself that I don't often dig deep into the functions of governments in my fantasy stories partly for this reason, though in larger part it's simply due to my particular focus usually being away from the rulers of these worlds.
Thanks! Of course not every story needs to worry about these things and many of them ought not to. But it’s my jam, haha
The Gauls still lived in France after the Franks came in. There was, in fact, a lot less migration in this era than the tales they told.
I'm curious what you mean by "this period?" There was quite(!) a bit of migration in the 4th - 6th centuries, but migration does not mean "replacement." Not by a long shot. But any "Gaul" who lived under Clovis's kingdom would have had a lot more in common with a fellow 5th century Roman (for all Gauls, by then, were Roman) than they would with a 1st century BC Gaul. Eventually "Gaul" as a distinct identity simply disappeared, and that happened *right around* the time that that geographic area was increasingly known not as Gallia, but as Frankia. The timing of that shift is no coincidence, and that's my whole point.
A lot of historians used to write as if it were, in fact, total replacement. All of England got taken over by the Anglo-Saxons, etc.