The White Council

Re: Fonstad's Estimates (was Re: Gondor at the end of the Third Age)

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: : Absolutely. :-) Overall, it's not bad. It's generally a : : useful distillation, but not Holy Writ. Her tallying of : : numbers involved at the Pelennor -- amply documented, and I : : double-checked some of it -- was what I was using. She also : : does a fairly good job of breaking down timelines, dates and : : distances. Some of the geography, not to mention the : : illustrations and schematics, is a little weaker. It's a useful : : source, so long as its used carefully.

: Her numbers for Gondor are partly made up: 1000 men for Aragorn,

Agreed. All Tolkien says is "a great valour of the folk of Lebennin and Lamedon and the fiefs of the south." She quotes ROTK p. 44, the '65 edition, which I don't have, so I'm not sure where this number comes from. She has the sense to call it an "estimate," for whatever that's worth.

: 2000 men for Denethor.

She assumes at least three companies of 500 men each for the City Guard (presumably from Beregond's membership in the Third Company?) and an outgarrison company. I can't find any further textual basis for the estimate. 500 seems a terribly thin force to hold the entire Rammas wall, but there's little to go on. It's probably closer than the estimate for Aragorn's force, for whatever that's worth.

She also made up the numbers for Minas Morgul (20,000) and the Easterlings (7,000). All these numbers are completely without textual basis.

I can't find any support for these numbers either. I can't say they're right, and I can't say they're wrong. It certainly can't have been much less.

Still, Fonstad's Atlas isn't totally without value; you just can't quote from it unless you've got something solid from Tolkien to back it up. For me, the chief value lay in the timelines and attendant maps for the progress of the Fellowship in LOTR, which are generally well documented. Some of the maps leave something to be desired. The depictions of specific places (Menegroth, Rivendell, etc) are sometimes largely made up, and not at all as I might depict them.

Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle Earth is still the best third party reference work for Tolkien out there.

: : : I would also like to add a piece of information while it is : : : still fresh in my mind from a lecture two hours ago. In the : : : years ~1650 (when Denmark founded a professional army)- : : : ~1720, Denmark, Sweden and Prussia were the three mostly : : : militarised states in Europe in comparison to actual number : : : of inhabitants. The percentage of the population under arms : : : in the Army in Denmark varied between 2- 4% (with a slightly : : : larger navy) in Sweden (with whom we Danes were perpetually : : : at war in this period)it swung between 5 and 10% (the 10% : : : financed by France- Sweden could not afford it on its own) : : : and in Prussia between 5 and 6%. The organisation level of : : : society in these nations at this period (early absolutism) is : : : probably comparable to the Gondorian one (or inferior).

: : Good point.

: Gondor was compared by Tolkien to classical civilizations, so it makes more sense to use those civiliations to estimate its potential capabilities.

I think early modern nations of Western Europe had attained the same level of political and military organization as Rome, with the notable exception of the advantage of gunpowder. Still, you are correct: Gondor was loosely modeled on classical civilizations more than anything else.

: [snip]

: : Rome was clearly the model for Gondor, at least in some : : respects -- particularly in terms of its division and decay. : : Gondor at its peak was likely a notch or two above that of Rome : : in terms of stability, organization, and science, but I think : : much of Roman and Medieval history can still be applied to : : Gondor.

: Although I perceive parallels between Rome and Gondor, Tolkien was more intent on the Egyptian influences he adapted, and other people like to compare Minas Tirith to Byzantium. So I tend to just say "Classical Civilization" and leave it at that. Classical Medieterranean Civilization might be more appropriate.

I can't argue with that...

Except that "Classical civlization" is generally held to refer to Greek and Roman civilizations, not Egypt or the other older societies of the Middle East. Shall we say "Ancient Mediterraneann civilization?" :-)

But I do remember Tolkien's letter expounding on the Egyptian qualities of the Numenoreans -- the Egyptian-style crown of Gondor, the emphasis on great works of stone, the obsession with death and preservation of the dead, and so on.

Gondor is clearly an amalgamation of ancient societies, with unique elements -- its ancientness, the longevity of lifespans, the impact of the Eldar and the Valar -- dictated by the context of Middle Earth. It is almost as if the Roman Empire were founded by exiled Egyptians, with the attendant division of Rome and Constantinople loosely paralleled by the estrangement of Arnor and Gondor. But which is really which? The siege of Minas Tirith evokes the fall of Constantinople in many ways, but the analogies break down when you try to take them too far. In the end the thing simply takes on a life of its own, greater than the sum of its influences. It's a unique creation of genius that Tolkien unfolds for us.

Oberon