>Aragorn: “Sauron is evil because he wants to take over the world”
>Also Aragorn:
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>Aragorn: Sauron is evil because he wants to take over the world. >Also Aragorn:
>Aragorn: “Sauron is evil because he wants to take over the world”
>Also Aragorn:
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Gondor and Arnor are his rightful territory and conquering Mordor is justified.
He established trade and diplomacy with the Haradrim and the Easterlings and healed the rift between their nations that Numenorean colonialism caused.
In summary read the books.
>fpbp + trips of truth
Why has the thread continued when this was already posted?
My interoperation of the appendix is that they never really held all the territory north of Mordor. Aragorn and Eomer went on pacification campaigns not conquest.
The books also go on about Aragorn rebuilding a bunch of stuff he most certainly didn't have the population to A.) Rebuild it and B.) Man it after it was rebuilt.
Eriador was already a wasteland and the book causalities and the last Elves leaving it would've been near totally empty except for the Shire and the few middle men villages like Bree.
But what was his tax policy
Beleriand is pretty small compared to the rest of Middle-Earth.
Aragorn becomes king because everyone wants him to be king.
>Ruling the entire world justly and benevolently is exactly as bad as ruling the entire world as an evil tyrannical dictator
So this is your brain on post modernism, huh
dictator is an elected position, rex or king is more aligned with unlawful power derived from having power
The frick?
Power is law.
irrelevant to his point
Aragorn received his imperium lawfully from the Steward of Gondor.
Stewart was a heck of a guy
Oh yeah?
Where was he when the Westfold fell, if he's so fricking swell?
>gets caught engaging in relativist Black persony
>deflects to semantic Black persony
You love to see it
divine right, you wouldn't get it
lorelet here, whats Lindon like?
>Capital city of Elves
>"Its called.... Lindon!"
BRAVO TOLKIEN!!!
so its elf-land? now that they left though can't humans move in?
I think Tolkien envisionaged Lindon becoming Luthany which became the British Isles.
what about this? seems ripe for the taking
Iron Hills are all Dwarven land. Mirkwood is full of nasty stuff. Rhun is full of baddies
There's a kingdom (or maybe kingdoms) of men there called Dorwinion, they make wine that the elves love buying and getting druk off of.
I don't think there's much going on there.
The ancestors of the Rohirim, Aragorn very distantly in the female line and, I guess the men of Laketown used to have a kingdom stretching over all of Rhovanion.
To the south is Dorwinion where another kingdom of northmen make the wine Thranduil and his court gets wasted on.
Oh and I forgot to mention that there are great Bovines there, Boromir's horn is comes from one such and has been passed down the house of Hurin from the time when the area was Gondorian. There may also be dark elves who refused to follow Oromë hanging out there.
this is just seething at nothing
>Cinemaphile
kek based image
tolkien is the most overrated author in history
>Amerigo Vespucci discovers a new continent
>"hmmm...I will call this land...AMERICA!"
wooooow, really?
its called columbia
Have you read Lord of the Rings? He was objectively a really good writer.
Harlindon is nice, but this time of year Forlindon is pretty much covered in fog 80% of the day. Takes a long time to get out to the woods on weekends. Overrated IMO.
you saw it at the end of RotK
it is the ports and harbors the elves use to go to Valinor
Cirdan the Shipwright was the only known elf old enough to grow a beard.
when Beleriand sank into the sea the only region that survived was Lindon. it was once called Ossiriand home of the green elves. I wonder if because of their lack of precipitation in the war the land was spared.
>because of their lack of precipitation in the war the land was spared
Most likely a combination of luck and having a large population alive to secure their land against refugees.
What is the point of having all this territory if you only have two cities?
I've been thinking recently that feudalism makes perfect sense as a way for property to evolve over generations into a form of government but monarchy seems highly arbitrary. The feudal lord is basically just renting to his peasants and providing them with security, this arrangement is perfectly logical, but the monarchs claim over the feudal lords doesn't seem to have any equivalent function. If anything it seems like a mere threat of superior military power since the lord already has his own military force and land. It sort of makes it murky and unclear who actually owns the land, the monarch or the lord
It is indeed very murky, but in theory, in many places, an in many times, the land is technically the monarch's, who then rent it out to various layers of lords who then rent it out to peasants. But there's a lot of asterisks involved, and every time and place had a different form of "feudalism."
That's more important is that God wants the monarch to be in charge, and since you genuinely believe in God you'll recognize his God-given right.
It seems like getting away from the actual functional structure of administration of agricultural, industrial, military roles to random arbitrary titles being traded around. Ideally ownership of land should be tied to a sort of self sufficient entity that actually oversees the material day to day issues.
you’re missing the point that these lords are all corralled by the king. if the king wasn’t there they’d be fighting eachother constantly. the kings job is to keep everyone happy. peasants aren’t happy with their lord, the king legislates binding duties for all of the lords. the lords aren’t happy, the king gives legal authority to edicts which help them out. he keeps all his subjects happy or they murder him and replace him with his brother. in turn his subjects aren’t infighting and exploding into violence over basic disputes constantly
Is this truly necessary though? Wouldnt things like trade incentivize peace between lords anyway? Also maybe it isnt necessarily bad to have little wars frequently
>things like trade
lmao
I own a large chunk of land and my neighbour owns some which would be very lucrative for me and consolidate my family’s power. My army is bigger. Trade ceases to mean anything at that point. If there’s a king who will summon every other levy in the realm against me, suddenly i’m incentivised to cooperate
There are serious costs to warfare even if you win. It's not like you just measure dicks
The costs often do not outweigh the benefits because war was almost constant pre modernity. Kings were a vital stopgap making sure kingdoms weren’t collapsing in on themselves into various competing city states constantly
What if this is monarchist propaganda? But also maybe it is preferable to have these wars as a sort of cleansing factor, so that power always remains tightly related to military prowess and functioning economy. Instead of bloated and often tyrannical layers of meme authority
>what if you just have constant chaos that incentives perpetual defensiveness and fear against everyone around you where it’s impossible to cooperate because no central authority is codifying laws or establishing courts anywhere
if you want to remain in the stone age sure
>codifying laws or establishing courts anywhere
Laws and courts are a menace generally. Justice is always a matter of sincerity and competence in the judge, and legalism just opens the door to exploitation.
Trade preventing war is a complete meme. All the Great Powers were each others' greatest trading partners before WWI. Right up until the day war was declared, professional fart sniffers were predicting there wouldn't be a war because it would hurt the economy too much.
Thats not comparable to feudal lords though because the people running those countries didn't have a stake in them in the same way.
He didn't say that.
no he said "Sauron is evil because... because he just IS, OKAY??"
you sound israeli. israelites are incapable of understanding the nature of true good vs evil.
He didn't say that either.
The map of middle earth is not good.
actually Sauron is evil because he's the Devil, weird how you left that little factoid out and framed it as a purely geopolitical conflict, huh?
I never liked the ‘elves are sailing away from middle earth’ device. A lot of Tolkien’s world elements seem very arbitrary and lacking of free will. The elves have no will to power, and they seem utterly content to just fade away.
what do you expect from a christcuck like tolkien? people really need to move past LOTR. it may have folkloric aesthetics but it’s draped in israelite worship morality
This. Tolkiens christcuckery leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The dude thinks everyone should be a peasant in pre industrial agrarian filth ordered around by a “god ordained” king. He constantly incentivises protecting weak beings and rejecting power for yourself.
Did you miss the part where they rebelled against the gods and left literal heaven to carve out their own fortunes in defiance of the will of said gods?
this never happened though
The first age didn't happen?
not in this nietzsche larp way you are suggesting it did
Galadriel literally states she left Arnor because she wanted to rule her own realm, and it was specifically forbidden by the valar.
Aman, sorry* stupid lotr names