Q: Why Would Amlaith Divide Arnor with His Brothers?
Although I still have quite a backlog of questions going back to April of 2017, this recent submission was just so interesting and compelling I had to write something before all these ideas in my head fade away. Here is what I received:
Michael, Are there any details as to why exactly Arnor was split into three kingdoms after the death of Eärendur? We know there was fighting between his sons, but they were not triplets, as Amlaith was the eldest. On what basis did the two others make their claim to the throne? Why were their claims even considered or entertained, given how clear cut the law was (that the eldest inherits the kingship)? Why would any people have supported the younger brothers in their claim? Was there something wrong with Amlaith in some way? Was he weak, invalid, or incompetent?
Well, the short answer to the first question is “No”. So far as I am aware, Tolkien never wrote down the details of what led to the division of Arnor.
However, it does not follow that the two younger brothers wanted the throne for themselves. It seems to me Tolkien would have mentioned that motive, and that it might have played a greater role in the historical narrative. But in terms of the story that needed to be told, J.R.R. Tolkien only needed to achieve the division of Arnor. He had to show, through the historical essay about the Dunedain, that they “fell from grace”, as it were, by quarreling among themselves and weakening their power. The division of Arnor made the northern Dunedain vulnerable, and that was all that was necessary for the narrative structure of the history. Tolkien needed a reason for Arnor, which began as the stronger of the two nations, to become weaker than Gondor (which at that time was still ascending toward greatness).
Let me quote from my Kindle eBook Mindfaring Through Middle-earth (which is NOT fan fiction, as one reviewer asserted):
Another mystery is why Elendil built the city of Annúminas on the southern shore of Nenuial (Lake Evendim, the great inland body of water that lay just north of the Shire). In one version of “The History of Galadriel and Celeborn” Tolkien wrote that she and Celeborn settled in the same region, ruling over all the Elves of Eriador. In 2011 I wrote a short essay titled “When Was Annúminas Abandoned by the Dúnedain of Arnor?” in which I speculated that Elendil, once a great sea captain, could have settled beside a lake large enough to support boating (use of small ships). To the best of my knowledge J.R.R. Tolkien does not speak of such things, but the city’s name itself is curious.
Annúminas is translated as “Citadel of the Sunset (or West)”. Although Annú strikes me as a poetic reference to Numenor, a minas was a fortified city with a central tower (such as the Tower of the Stewards in Minas Tirith and the huge ghastly tower in Minas Morgul). In a land formerly controlled by Gil-galad, Elendil felt the need to build not one but two fortified cities (the other being Fornost Erain eastward of Annúminas) in the north. An ost, apparently, did not feature a central tower but was otherwise a fortified city. So why did Elendil need to build two fortified cities on the north side of his realm? What did he fear might come out of the north? Dragons, perhaps? Orcs and trolls? Alas! We will never know. But it may be safe to assume that not all of Eriador was friendly to Gil-galad or welcomed Elendil’s new realm.
Now, before you wander off thinking, “There’s Mad Martinez badgering off on his own again …” (okay, this IS a bit of a digression, but stay with me), let me remind you of another annoying question concerning the Line of Isildur: Who Killed King Valandur of Arnor? Yeah, that guy: High King no. 8. He was the grand-father of Eärendur and, like Elendil and Isildur before him, he died an early, violent death. So we learn in “Appendix A” to The Lord of the Rings (where Isildur’s name is not annotated with a dagger). Maybe someone made a mistake and the dagger that should have gone by Isildur’s name was placed beside Valandur’s name instead. However, in an earlier draft of the list of High Kings (published in The Peoples of Middle-earth, volume XII of The History of Middle-earth) Tolkien clearly annotated all three names (Elendil, Isildur, and Valandur) as having been “slain”. Valandur died young compared to his father and son. So I think it’s fair to say that Valandur died a violent death.
My thought for many years was that J.R.R. Tolkien envisioned some sort of threat to Arnor coming from northern Eriador, perhaps toward the northeast where Angmar was later founded. There were “wild men” there (apparently descended from First Age Easterlings who fled the wrath of the Valar), and Orcs, and Trolls, and whatever. If Elendil felt compelled to built not one but three fortified cities (Annúminas and Fornost Erain in the north, and Tharbad in the south) then he must have had some dangerous enemies. We know that the Gwathuirim still living in eastern Enedwaith were unfriendly to the Dunedain. That is why Arnor and Gondor built and co-garrisoned Tharbad’s fortresses for 1700 years; and that is why Gondor built fortresses at Angrenost and Aglarond to defend the Gap of Calenardhon (later the Gap of Rohan).
It makes sense that Elendil would defend his realm against hostile neighbors. Rivendell (then still a powerful Elvish enclave) controlled the eastern lands south of the Ettenmoors, and Lindon controlled the western lands beyond the Lhûn. So my firm belief is that there was always a threat to Arnor from the northern lands. But this threat was not substantial enough to justify more than the names of a couple of cities and a dagger beside one king’s name. In other words, the Easterlings who invaded Gondor early in the Third Age were a more powerful enemy, or a more dangerous threat, than whomever was harassing Arnor from the north. They were not friendly folk, but they were not numerous and/or organized well enough to seriously threaten the kingdom’s survival.
In any event, I think it’s safe to say that Tolkien left us enough clues to see that Arnor, like Gondor, had its own conflicts even during the days of the High Kings. So what does that mean for the northern realm upon Eärendur’s death in Third Age year 861? T.A. 861 fell during the time of Tarannon Falastur’s reign (T.A. 830-913). He was the first of the four Ship-kings of Gondor and his wars were mostly fought in the lands west of Minas Anor and south of Pelargir. But Tarannon’s wars began before he took the crown, which was when he assumed the name Falastur (meaning “lord of coasts”). I find it doubtful that Eärendur would have died (ON EDIT: fought) in one of Gondor’s wars. There is literally nothing significant in the “Tale of Years” around the time of Eärendur’s death. His death is the only significant event between Tarannon’s ascending the throne in 830 and Eärnil I’s conquest of Umbar in 933. (ON EDIT: So if Eärendur’s reign saw any conflict, it was probably in the north.)
Now, returning to Valandur — whatever happened to him, I am convinced it must have happened in the north. He could have fallen off his horse for all we know. He doesn’t have to have died in battle. But since he was designated as “slain” we are probably safer to guess that he either died in battle or was murdered (perhaps in a duel). It seems to me that if Eärendur Valandur died as a result of rebellion that Tolkien would have at least mentioned such a story, even if he didn’t have time to write it. So I think that means brave Eärendur Valandur died in battle, (ON EDIT: and it is convenient to assume that the conflicts continued after Valandur’s death).
Upon that assumption I’ll base the rest of my guesswork (some would call this unbridled speculation without textual support – so let’s just agree that is what it is and move on).
Arnor’s Division Could Have Been a Matter of Policy
Looking at where the three sons ended up, it seems logical to me that Tolkien imagined them disagreeing on what to do next. According to the pre-publication version of events published in The Peoples of Middle-earth, Annúminas was deserted upon or soon after Eärendur’s death. The time at which the city was abandoned seems ambiguous in the published book, but Tolkien was forced to shorten the appendices because of a paper shortage. He had no choice but to remove a lot of details, and I think the detail of when Annúminas was abandoned was a casualty of that forced redaction. That would also explain why Tolkien didn’t elaborate further on what happened: he just didn’t have the space to do so. And while we can say he had time to write a story later in life, he didn’t write anything (that we know about). We just have to accept that the story was never told.
So let’s call what follows the Strategic Hypothesis. If Eärendur suffered a grievous defeat at the hands of some terrible enemy (either in the north or the south), his sons might have disagreed on how to defend the realm with reduced forces. Amlaith moved to Fornost. One of his brothers moved to Rhudaur. I infer from that division of lands that they saw some threat in the north. The third brother could have retreated to Cardolan or Tyrn Gorthad (where many towers were built) either to maintain the garrison at Tharbad or to stay out of his brothers’ way.
Amlaith retained control over two Palantiri, but Rhudaur and Cardolan fought over the Palantir of Amon Sûl (Weathertop). I find it curious that Amlaith did not dispute control of the “master stone” with his brothers; but perhaps Tolkien was implying that Amlaith already had sufficient stones for his needs. He may not have wanted to fight with his brothers. The younger princes may have felt they needed a Palantir to keep watch on their borders. Both were situated near dangerous lands. And Cardolan, if it controlled the northern garrison at Tharbad, would need to coordinate with Gondor as much as possible.
If the three brothers could not agree on which part of the realm most needed defending, then they might have simply agreed to each take a region for his own.
Maybe Arnor’s Division Resulted from Fear
The Fear Hypothesis supposes that Eärendur’s (younger) sons became fearful about something. Amlaith doesn’t strike me as being afraid because he established his seat at Fornost. Presumably, Fornost was closer to the more dangerous regions of Eriador than Annúminas. But Rhudaur (the name means “evil woods”, according to some, but “evil borderland” may be a more accurate translation) was close to the Ettenmoors. So if the second brother was afraid of whatever threat came from the north (and this was centuries before the Witch-king established Angmar), then why would he settle in Rhudaur? In the pre-publication version of the narrative, Tolkien wrote that Rhudaur lay north of the Great Road. Still, it was close to Rivendell, which was still militarily powerful. So Rhudaur might have been a safer haven than Fornost.
It then follows that if the third brother also didn’t want anything to do with some war in the north, he retreated south to Cardolan where he felt safe. Now, I’m not accusing these brothers of cowardice. Their motives could have been concern for the safety of their people. And let me also point to the various times that the Elves of Middle-earth got and moved out of harm’s way because of fear. So it’s not demeaning to the Dunedain to suggest that some of their populations were less able to tolerate being close to danger than others. The people of Ithilien slowly retreated across Anduin out of fear of Minas Morgul, for example.
Greed Might Have Played a Role in the Division
The Dunedain were not perfect, as we can see from the Kin-strife in Gondor. So the Greed Hypothesis supposes that one or both of Amlaith’s brothers took advantage of the confusion following their father’s death to seize control of territory. Why do this instead of unseating Amlaith? Well, Amlaith could have retained control of a large enough military to prevent a full-on rebellion. And if both the younger brothers had royal ambitions of their own, a partition of Arnor would make more sense than fighting with each other and Amlaith at a time when the army had been greatly weakened.
Greed or ambition could lead either younger son to actually betray their father, and perhaps create the circumstances that led to his death. Amlaith would not be able to stand by and do nothing; hence, he might have quarreled with his brothers and accused them of treason or cowardice.
The Brothers Could Simply Have Hated Each Other
If you have ever read or seen any version of “The Lion In Winter” then you might agree that Tolkien could have envisioned brothers who grew up hating each other. Let’s call this the Sibling Rivalry Hypothesis.
In this hypothesis, the younger brothers might vie with Amlaith for their father’s love and the adoration of Arnor’s people. Imagine the blame they would place on each other if Eärendur’s army suffered a great defeat and the king himself was slain. They would never be able to resolve their differences. Grief and anger could lead to each brother saying things for which the others would never forgive him. That is characteristic of some of Tolkien’s tragic stories (especially the tale of Turin).
Whatever Happened was Tragic
I don’t know how to resolve this question to anyone’s satisfaction. All we know for sure is that Arnor was divided between three brothers who couldn’t get along. If I had to guess, and choose only one hypothesis, I think I would go with the last one. The division of Arnor was indeed tragic for the Dunedain of the North, all of Eriador, and all of the Dunedain-in-Exile. But it may only reflect some brief idea in J.R.R. Tolkien’s mind that perhaps three brothers had a falling out with dire consequences.
In August 2000 I wrote “Razing Arnor: How Real Were the Dunadan Conspiracies?” That essay was a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but it explored some possibilities farther afield. Suppose Tarannon Falastur’s marriage to Beruthiel meant that he was trying to reconcile with the Black Numenoreans? What would be the repercussions of such overtures? Still, it’s reaching pretty far to suggest that Tarannon’s policies set into motion events that led to the division of Arnor.
I honestly think Tolkien imagined Arnor having its own internal conflicts. He just never found time to figure out what they were or how they should have unfolded. But it would have been fascinating, I am sure, to read at least a few names in that family tree. Maybe the division of Arnor was comparable in devastation to the division of Gondor after the death of Castamir the Usurper at the end of the Kin-strife. We just don’t have the details to confirm that guess.
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Q: Why Was Arnor Divided Into Three Kingdoms?
ANSWER: In Third Age year 861 the three sons of Eärendur, last of the High Kings of Arnor, divided his realm into three smaller kingdoms. Readers sometimes ask why J.R.R. Tolkien introduced this division into his political timeline. However, though the division of Arnor seems striking at first glance it is by no means the only such political division to occur within Tolkien’s Middle-earth histories.
For example, the Noldor became divided into two peoples — the faithful Noldor of Aman (ruled by Finarfin) and the rebellious Noldor of Middle-earth, who followed Fëanor into exile. But Fëanor abandoned many of his fellow exiles in Aman, leading only a small part of the rebellious Noldor to Middle-earth. Fëanor’s brother Fingolfin led the remaining Noldor by way of the Helcaraxë on a long march that eventually brought them to the same northern lands where Fëanor’s people had settled.
The Teleri, another Elven people, had themselves become divided into the Nandor, the Sindar, and the Falmari (of Aman); and the Sindar had been divided into the Falathrim and the Eglath (or Doriathrim). The Nandor themselves were divided into many lesser groups, from whom came the Laegrim or Green-elves of Ossiriand, and from the Laegrim a small number relocated in Doriath, becoming known as the Guest-elves.
The Noldor established several kingdoms in the First Age, and again they were divided in the Second Age; as were the Sindar and their distant relatives the East-elves. So there are many examples of political divisions among Tolkien’s intellectual elites, often due to internal political divisions. Their differences of opinions thus reflect real historical politics and experiences.
The Nunenorean realms of Arnor and Gondor both experienced strife and division. Arnor went through this process first but Gondor was divided into two kingdoms many centuries later after Castamir the Usurper was defeated by Eldacar; Castamir’s sons led a remnant of Gondor’s rebels south to Umbar, where they established an independent kingdom, thus dividing Gondor.
While Tolkien provided more detail about the reasons for Gondor’s civil war than for Arnor’s division, we know from the appendices in The Lord of the Rings that there was strife among Eärendur’s three sons. The narratives do not shed any light on the great issues of the day, but it may be significant that the division of Arnor occurred during the reign of Tarannon Falastur of Gondor (Third Age 830 – 913). Tarannon was the first of Gondor’s four great Ship-kings and he began a series of wars that extended Gondor’s power west and south along Middle-earth’s coastlands. Tarannon also married the Black Numenorean princess Berúthiel, whom he ultimately sent into exile.
Although we don’t know where Berúthiel came from, Umbar is certainly one possibility. Another possibility may be a land near Mordor. Could it be that Tolkien briefly thought about telling a story concerning Arnorian reaction to Tarannon’s ambitions and political arrangements? After all, marrying a Black Numenorean princess might have been perceived as a treasonous deed among some Faithful Numenoreans; perhaps the princes of Arnor could not all accept Tarannon’s marriage and the challenge Tarannon’s wars presented to the authority and prestige of the High Kingship.
Perhaps Amlaith of Fornost divided the realm to preserve the peace between Arnor and Gondor, if one or both of his younger brothers wanted to go to war with Tarannon over his political marriage. Or perhaps Amlaith’s brothers felt he was too weak and ineffective to be the senior king in Arnor’s relationship with Gondor, and thus they took advantage of Amlaith’s weakness to carve out their own realms. There are plenty of possible explanations for the political strife leading up to Arnor’s division and both fan fiction writers and role-playing game masters may find some interesting options for their imagination in this time frame.
Nonetheless, we are left only with speculation and guesswork. There are no definitive or even ambiguous statements from J.R.R. Tolkien concerning the nature of the differences between Amlaith and his brothers. It is remarkable, I think, that one brother would choose to name his realm Rhudaur (meaning “evil wood”) but I have suggested elsewhere that perhaps the original name of his kingdom was lost to history and Rhudaur is simply a later name bestowed upon the region. For example, the kingdom could have originally been called Rhunarth (“east realm”) or Rhunedain (“east Edain”).
We will probably never know these details. Thus, we may as well have fun in speculating what they might have been, as long as we don’t confuse such speculation with canonical explanations from Tolkien’s hand.
SEE ALSO:
Why Would Amlaith Divide Arnor with His Brothers? (August 2018)
# # #
https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Follow The Middle-earth Blog
Manage your ONCE DAILY DIGEST subscriptions here
Leave This Blank:Leave This Blank Too:Do Not Change This:Your email:
A confirmation email will be sent to new subscribers AND unsubscribers. Please look for it!
Click here to follow The Middle-earth Blog on Twitter: @tolkien_qna.
Google Plus: Middle-earth Blog on Google Plus
The Middle-earth Blog’s RSS Feed (summaries only)
Please share this with your friends:
Twitter
Facebook
Tumblr
Pinterest
There’s a problem with your argument though: Valandur, Amlaith’s *grandfather* “died violently”, not his father Earendur. The division of Arnor took place after the peaceful death of Earendur, judging by his age of simple longevity. So you doubt that he died in one of Gondor’s battles, and go on to discuss about the strategic challenges Arnor faced, yet the dates don’t seem to match.
I think it’s possible that the brothers agreed to divide the realm on strategic or fear-based grounds, but given that their father had *not* died violently I think it’s far more plausible that Arnor divided due to simple greed or fraternal loathing.
You are so right. I somehow transitioned in my thinking from Valandur to Eärendur. I wrote the article earlier this week and was in a little bit of pain. I’ll have to try to reconstruct my thinking and see where I was going with that. I may edit the article before the next blog update is emailed to subscribers.
AND IT’S NOW EDITED. That is as close as I’ll come to reconstructing my original thinking, but it makes sense to me. I believe I was trying to show that if Valandur’s death came as a result of a war in the north, then it is reasonable to guess that whatever enemies existed in his day could have still been around when Eärendur died. At that point (in the unedited article) I assumed Eärendur could have died as a result of a war, and Tolkien didn’t annotate his death with a dagger. But I don’t think the assumption is required. The threat could still be there and Eärendur could simply have decided it was time for a younger man to take up the throne.
And THEN all hell broke loose.
Where do you find that the name/word Rhudaur means “Evil-Forest”? I’ve never seen that before. East-Forest makes sense to me.
If I recall correctly, the translation for “rhudaur” was provided by J.R.R. Tolkien in one of his Elvish essays or lexicons, probably published in Parma Eldalamberon. I don’t have a handy reference at the moment.
So, it would appear that I have (in the past) challenged the interpretation of “Evil Wood” for Rhudaur. See my essay What Is the Capital of Rhudaur?”, where I argued that the name more likely means “Evil Stop”, or “Evil March”, or “Evil Borderland”. Also, as a note I appended to the essay indicates, I included considerable discussion about the possible meanings of “Rhudaur” in Mindfaring Through Middle-earth.
Hi Michael,
I think this is your best essay on the Division of Arno; https://middle-earth.xenite.org/razing-arnor-how-real-were-the-dunadan-conspiracies/
Love that essay. An ambitious Tarannon Falastur works so well.
I also agree with the premise of this essay too, something was amiss even years before the Sundering of Arnor. Valandur’s violent death 200 years before the break up of Arnor is a clear sign of trouble. Perhaps even War, like you suggest.
Maybe a series of events conspired to lead to the Division of Arnor; Uprisings, Enemies on the borders (North East and South), weak Amlaith, ambitious brothers, the machinations of the ambitious Tarannon Falastur….
All that and more could have been the impetus for the break up of Arnor. For me, I love the Tarannon angle you introduced in the earlier essay. Pure genius.
A fine essay! For my part, you said it all with this passage, “But in terms of the story that needed to be told, J.R.R. Tolkien only needed to achieve the division of Arnor. He had to show, through the historical essay about the Dunedain, that they ‘fell from grace’, as it were, by quarreling among themselves and weakening their power.”
I see Arnor as fatally flawed from the first. Isildur’s Bane is actually the bane of the entire North Kingdom. The story arc for Arnor requires a descent to a travel-worn, somewhat disreputable-looking fellow at the Prancing Pony. The individual points on the dotted line simply need to move us in the right direction.
‘Division between siblings’ is such a well-known historic and dramatic theme that there’s little more that needs to be said. It’s symbolic of personal pride and jealousy taking precedence over the preservation of the realm and the wellbeing of the populace. We may search for alternate explanations (decentralization of defense to better respond to immediate threats, policy disagreement, fear), but those aren’t tragic flaws. You concluded, “Whatever Happened was Tragic.” I’d argue that whatever happened *had* to be tragic.
Here’s a somewhat related question. Was the creation of separate realms for Isildur and Anárion a similarly tragic flaw, or purely strategic, reflecting the practicalities of ruling such a widespread territory?
The timeline for Arnor is littered with classic causes of decline; most do not receive detailed attention, nor do they require it. Middle-earth is a huge mural, with some story elements painted in sharp detail in the foreground, while others in the deep background may be nothing more than a few suggestive brushstrokes. A road recedes into the distance, winding through the hills and vales towards the vaguest hint of a town or city. If we embark on that road, perhaps we’ll arrive at fair Avalon (or Annúminas, as the case may be).
Could the Numenorean supremacism be a cause of the division of Arnor? Cardolan and Rhudaur probably had mixed populations, the repartition might have been an agreement to maintain Isildur’s lineage, although it was given proper lineage to the middle princes. If I am not mistaken they are not cited by names, this could raise a theory that they were children of a Middle woman and that their lineages were not well-regarded by the Dunedain of the lineage of Elendil, something like that happened to Eldacar right? the Middle men, on the other hand considered the Dúnedains oppressors and did not recognize the high lineage, they then take power where the Dúnedains are few and form new governments. Tolkien says that by the time of the war with Angmar all the rulers of Rhudaur were Hillmens.
There is yet another case of supremacism in Middle Earth in the Black Numenoreans, they were absorbed by the Haradrim, but probably held power as an elite of tyrants, their case seems even more evident than in the case of the Dúnedains.
Interesting theory, but the Bree-landers were men related to Gwathuirim (Dunlendings) and yet they seemed to live peacefully with Dunedain in Arthedain for centuries. Also other kings were also said to be of Isildur’s line until it died out in both Rhudaur and Cardolan and considering that marriage with non-numenorean women of princes from royal family would be noted by Tolkien, the cause of division being similar to racial prejudices like in regards to Kin-strife would be rather important motivation that Tolkien would have mentioned. It seems that Tolkien always regarded division as being more of a political one. The Hill-men started being trouble when Angmar arose and yet we don’t hear of any tensions earlier, it seems that for a time there must be peaceful coexistence until Witch-king put his influence, Cardolan would have some population of other ‘edainic’ peoples native to Eriador since First Age and they would be in general friendly. The line of Isildur was said to die out around the time of reign of Malvegil of Arthedain or his son:
“In the days of Argeleb son of Malvegil, since no descendants of Isildur remained in the other kingdoms, the kings of Arthedain again claimed the lordship of all Arnor. The claim was resisted by Rhudaur. There the Dúnedain were few, and power had been seized by an evil lord of the Hill-men, who was in secret league with Angmar. Argeleb therefore fortified the Weather Hills….”
In Cardolan it seems that some lesser house took power, for the ‘last prince of Cardolan’ (to whom supposedly belonged the Barrow in which Frodo and friends were captured) died in war of 1409 T.A. Other peoples who could have been troubling Arnor were most likely the native Angmarians, the Lossoth were too peaceful to pose any threat.
In re the premature death of Valandur, the dagger apparently only signifies a premature death, not necessarily a “violent” one. Notice that Telemnar of Gondor rated a dagger, and he died of the Plague of his time. Maybe the Plague made its victims violently ill, but that doesn’t seem to be a “violent death” as the term is generally understood! Earnil I, who also received the dagger in the king-list, perished not in battle but in a storm at sea.
Therefore, IMO we can’t rule out that Valandur died of something other than a battle or military action, but perhaps of assassination (which would raise intriguing questions in this early day before overt evil came to Eriador with the rise of Angmar), illness, or even some other accident such as in a hunt. (I’m thinking now of how King Robert in _A Game of Thrones_ perished, an assassination set up to look like a hunting accident!)
If Valandur was assassinated, what suspects do we have in Arnor or the remainder of the West of Middle-Earth? I thought it was interesting also that he died in the 50th year of his reign.
We do have JRRT’s statement that Arnor was broken up explicitly as a result of royal princes quarreling, presumably about their future status. “After Eärendur, owing to dissensions among his sons their realm was divided into three: Arthedain, Rhudaur, and Cardolan.”
Furthermore, we’re told that the population of Dunedain in Arnor was decimated in the War of the Last Alliance, and never recovered. The effective abandonment of the peripheral provinces might represent the consolidation of Dunedain with the family of the heir in a smaller territory around the capital and various royal lands and reservations including Amon Sul, Annuminas, and the royal cornlands that later became the Shire.
Some years ago, (I confess!) I was “lurking” and perusing another Tolkien forum, where I saw the question posed whether the three divisions of Arnor already existed in some form prior to its breakup on Earendur’s death? That got some juices simmering in my mind. Suppose Arthedain (which includes Annuminas and the royal demesne, as well as the rich lands that would become the Shire) , Cardolan, and Rhudaur had all originally been duchies or provinces whose administration and defense was the responsibility of some prince or noble? Suppose these dukes were not hereditary lines in themselves, but the eldest and younger sons of a king?
While in the Primary World United Kingdom, dukedoms without actual associated territory came to be given to royal princes, is it conceivable that JRRT contemplated that the 3 oldest sons of the reigning monarch on coming of age might be given actual duchies, sections of the kingdom, to administer? Moreover, once a new King ascended to the throne, and his sons took their places as dukes of the 3 provinces, what happened to the King’s younger brothers and uncles who’d ruled those places and then were expected to step aside gracefully? It seems to me that sooner or later such an arrangement, + inappropriately ambitious or devious brothers and uncles and cousins, and 2 of 3 provinces populated much more by men or nations besides the Dunedain, might be expected to lead to the breakup of the one kingdom into autonomous pieces in a state of at best uneasy peace, if not civil war?
I based the identification of “dagger denotes slain” on Tolkien’s use in The Peoples of Middle-earth, where he wrote:
Valandur 462 190 +slain 652
He could have changed his mind about its significance before going to print and that may be the ONLY reason why he changed the annotations. We have no way of knowing for sure.
… the Easterlings who invaded Gondor early in the Third Age were a more powerful enemy, or a more dangerous threat, than whomever was harassing Arnor from the north.
Perhaps not. Maybe the enemies assailing Gondor only appear more dangerous because the histories describing this period were written in Gondor. Maybe historians in Arnor had a different view on the matter. If Annúminas was finally abandoned at this time that would bear this out perhaps? Angmar was founded several centuries later, but perhaps there was a proto-Angmar like realm or people there the Witch King used to later found his kingdom. He must have had something to work on founding Angmar. It’s a shame Tolkien never elaborated as far as I know.
One further point about the division of Arnor. I wonder if Tolkien was inspired by what happened to the Celtic kingdoms of Britain. These seemed to undergo similar divisions between competing sons, which weakened them allowing the Anglo-Saxons to conquer the island. For instance Rheged in the northwest of Britain was one of the most powerful kingdoms in the island of Britain. Its first king was Coel Hen (the Old King Cole of the nursery rhymn), and one of his descendents, Urien, carried out the successful conquest of the whole of the north, with the remaining Anglo-Saxon forces bottled up on the tiny island of Lindisfarne. The Celtic British unfortunately threw that all away by assassinating him. Soon after Rheged seems to have been divided into two less powerful kingdoms, which were eventually overcome. There is plently of early Welsh literature describing these events, particularly many praise poems to him by Taliesin, preserved in the Book of Taliesin. Tolkien would have certainly been familiar with this story.