The inevitability of decay

[Húrin Thalion]

Thsi thread is written mainly with the exiled Dúnedain (Arnor, Gondor) in thought, but is as applyable to for example Númenor itself. Tolkien's ME is a throughly conservative world, all the struggles are for the preservation of the past, from the Second age on. The old elven culture and realms are preserved artificially by Rings and futile wars, not willing to abandon ME, the Kingdom's of the West are fighting a similar battle to preserve their elvish heritage and culture, not to speak about their former greatness. Always it is spoken about how the "Numenorean's dwindled in their exile" or "the craftsmanship and skill of the west forgotten".

Or if we look at the policies fo Gondor, did they ever try to expand their territories to the east and south for any alsting period? They had the strength, surely, but were staisfied with defeating their enemies and keeping guard on what they had, letting their children play with gems and pearls. Did they try to change the fierce mind of the eastern peoples, teach them the elvish crafts and cultures? They are sitting on their castles of sand, awaiting and fending of the ever rising tide, just preserving what they have had, but there is also something else there. Gradual decay. The strength and blood of Gondor failed, Arnor was corrupted and fell apart, they were lessened in stature, skill and also numbers. Why is this decay so inevitable? Why does what is great not last?

Makes me think aobut the Roman Empire really, especially that Augustus had the chance to continue the expansion but did not, after the loss of Quinctilius Varrus and his legions he would not risk anymore. Sloth?

Måns

[HLGStrider]

There were more causes than just ceasing expansion (eventually you'll have no where to expand to). In fact, I think lack of conquest was the least cause of the decline of the Roman emperor.

I think the problems were a massive welfare state coupled by debased coinage, and moral and civic decay.

I think the second might apply to Numenor, but not the first.

[Niniel]

And of course the Roman empire did not decline immediately after Augustus; it was only after him that it reached its greatest size and greatest cultural accomplishment. After 350 AD you could speak of actual decline, but that has nothing to do with Augustus' policies.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by Niniel
And of course the Roman empire did not decline immediately after Augustus; it was only after him that it reached its greatest size and greatest cultural accomplishment. After 350 AD you could speak of actual decline, but that has nothing to do with Augustus' policies.
Yes,it did not declined after him.Actually Augustus(23 BC - 14 AD)
set the foundation of the mighty and glory of the Roman Empire.
It can be stated that "The Golden Age of the Roman Empire " is during 2nd century A.C .
Trajan 98 - 117
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus

Hadrian
117 - 138
Publius Ælius Hadrianus

Antonius Pius
138 - 161
Titus Aurelius Fulvus

Marcus Aurelius
161 - 180
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Lucius Verus 161 - 169 (they ruled together with)

That was the time of the Roman Empire's greatest power in every aspect of the word "power".Of course there were other talented and excellent emperors but that was the longest period of stability and etc :)

[Húrin Thalion]

Wow, I wonder why this was called the TOLKIEN forum... it was meant as a passing reference to a historic example, not the topic of this thread. Moreover you seem to have completely misinterpreted my point:rolleyes: Ah well, I'm getting used to it.

Territorial expansion is not desirable at all, but in the case of Rome it was the foundatiopn of the state, and lack of it inevitably led to decay. The areas conquered in the times after never remained Roman a very long time, Britain excepted, most was taken back by the Sasanids and Dacians. And Gil Galad, your list refers to a few emperors, all fo them are in your opinion "good" emperors. Interesting that all of them lived after the death of Suetonius, who gave a very biased view of the emperors before him.

Moreover I did not say that it declined after Augustus, but if anyone had read a little about his policies, this discussion would be furthered a llot. Look at his municipal politics, at his building fo administration or his military strategies? Do they seem good to you? No, they were the long term recipe of decay.

So, is there anyone with an interest in Tolkien at this forum? Or with an interest fo writing posts longer than chat messages?

Måns

[Gil-Galad]

Hurin,I just wanted to prove you that The Roman Empire had its greatest time long time after Augustus.
I would like to continue this topic,but not here,so expect some pms from me :)

[Niniel]

I think the subject is very interesting Húrin, but I don't know an exact answer to it. It seems both in history and in ME that all empires fall at some point, or decay slowly in most cases. I can't really think of any reason why this should be so; if they did all the things right that should prolong their greatness it should be possible to last indefinitely. And yet all empires seem doomed to fall. I think that it is difficult to point at any particular reason for this; it depends to the situation they're in, the positions of their neighbouring countries etc.

(Yay 1500th post!!!!)

[Eledhwen]

They are obviously subject to The Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://www.secondlaw.com/)

[Lantarion]

Haha Eledhwen! :D

Very good post Húrin, I enjoyed reading it. :)
And you have a point; in fact, it's so evident and in the foreground of the Third Age that perhaps that was one of Tolkien's themes? 'All good things must come to an end'.
But yeah it's true this is a difficult matter to actually comment on, you said so much in your opening post!
But interesting..!

[HLGStrider]

Territorial expansion is not desirable at all, but in the case of Rome it was the foundatiopn of the state, and lack of it inevitably led to decay.

I think this is going to end up a history debate in part because I STILL disagree with this statement and stick with mine. I don't believe this was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire and I don't believe it was the cause of the Numenorean.

Numenor partly died because they strayed from tradition, or what can be considered morality, like the Romans.

They stopped accepting death.
They stopped honoring the Valar.
They stopped honoring the Eldar.

I think, even with expansion, they would've fallen due to these components. IN FACT, I think expansion, coupled with those components, would have increased the rate of decay, due to a larger empire being harder to maintain. The outskirts of the empire would be Numenorean only in name and of lesser people's in culture.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I think this is going to end up a history debate in part because I STILL disagree with this statement and stick with mine. I don't believe this was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire and I don't believe it was the cause of the Numenorean.

I am afraid this thread will become a historical one,but I hope it will be interesting for the others to learn some more about The Roman Empire.

Actually Hurin is absolutely correct.The main reason for the Fall of The Roman Empire was its structure and the slavery.The whole power of the Roman Empire was based on slavery.Thus the only way for its surviving was expansion.No expansion meant no slaves,no development of the Roman economy.The wars were the most important source of wealth for the Roman Empire.
All that was a very successful policy up to the middle of III rd century A.C.
But the things changed after the reign of Septimius Severus.
The problem of the Roman Empire was that it wasn't able to change itself,to reform itself and thus it was doomed.

The Numanoreans had a similar problem=too much expansion,but I wouldn't say they their fall was due to the same reasons which caused the fall of the Roman Empire. :)

[Eledhwen]

The similarity between the slide to ruin for Rome and Numenor was that they stopped loving their nation and began to love themselves. Over indulgence, debauchery and bloodlust for Rome; and a lust to live longer for Numenor, coupled with unhealthy worship practices. Both civilisations slid slowly into this state, Rome believing its own lies, Numenor believing Sauron's.


Numismatologists tell us that the decline of a civilisation is marked by an increasing proportion of base metals in its coinage, (which is interesting, because in England today, you can pick up your copper and silver coins with a magnet). Tolkien's world had little coinage that is mentioned, but reference is often made to later building and craft work being of lesser quality than the former.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by Eledhwen
The similarity between the slide to ruin for Rome and Numenor was that they stopped loving their nation and began to love themselves.
Exactly!!!!
In the beginning(the Time of The Republic and the first years of the Empire) the Roman Empire's citizens had almost a military lifestyle.They were disciplined,humble and strong people.But later with the might and glory they gained,these good features stepped back and were replaced by greed,selfishness etc....
The same happened with The Numenoreans,they became so mighty that they forgot their past and the power of the Valar and Eru.

[Húrin Thalion]

I started a rival thread with Tolkien discussion in mind, since I obviously do not have the power to delete my own threads, i will now ask a Mod to do it. If you disagree with me on my view of the Roman Empire, just PM me and I will change whatever you think. Or the other way around, but I highly doubt that, given the thoughts and theories expressed here.

Måns

[Mouth of Sauron]

It seems to me that Tolkien's theme of inevitable decay had a mythological rather than a historical basis. The Golden Age is succeeded by the Silver Age, which is succeeded by the Bronze Age (or was it copper?), well you get the point. Of course, Tolkien himself might not have seen it that way, but that's the way I see it. As for why that should be, I'd have to consult my ancient Greek philosophy books. I'm sure they must have had a theory on the reason for decay, which Tolkien probably knew about being the scholar that he was.

[Eledhwen]

Like Nebachudnezzar's dream of a statue - a story Tolkien was certainly familiar with.

[Mouth of Sauron]

Good point, I forgot all about that!

The head of gold=Babylon
The trunk of silver=Persian Empire
The waist & thighs of bronze=Alexandrian Empire/Greece
The legs of iron=Roman Empire
The feet of clay=???

The idea here is basically the same, only with empires instead of Ages. The metals decrease in preciousness and worth, and finally we end up with clay, which is abundant and therefore worthless. A fitting symbol for modern times...

[Helcaraxë]

Actually, I don't think the decay was because of an internal problem. Change is inevitable. Nothing can remain static forever. The stature and power of the Numenoreans was lessened simply bacause it could not remain as it was and still be subject to the implaccable laws of change. As was said before, Tolkien seems to have believed that all things must end, even if they only give way to new beginnings. The first age ended, the power and glory of the Eldar in Middle-earth was diminished, and the second age began. The second age passed, making way for the third age which was less in its power and glory both of good and evil than the Second. Such is the way of things.

MB

[Mouth of Sauron]

That's true, but the Fourth Age (and presumably, all subsequent ages as well) was supposed to be the Age of Man, and it can be said that the world was losing something with the passing of the Elves - something which resisted change, because they resisted change. So by this part of the story Tolkien may have been giving the idea of a remembered Golden Age a plausible explanation. He did this a lot, taking old myths and then explaining the reasons for them.

The explanation might go like this:

Change is inevitable, and the Elves don't like change, so they try to keep things the way they are (they're kind of like conservatives in that way). But eventually they become weary of the world and begin to leave it. The result of this is that their power to preserve the status quo is also slowly withdrawn from the world, and the world begins to change at an ever faster rate. The more Elves leave, the faster the rate of change (though of course this is a gross oversimplification; Sauron had a big hand in changing the world as well - but the Elves were also collectively resisting his power to do this).

So to someone who was used to the world changing only slowly, it would seem as though the world was suddenly going to hell in a handbasket, when really it was just resuming its natural course, which had been interrupted to a certain extent by the Elves. And later, the racial memory of an earlier time that was blessed by the Elves would resurface as the myth of a Golden Age. Seeking to answer the question of why such an age gave way to the current state of the world, philosophers would then invent a theory based on the succession of ages due to the inevitability of decay, and looking back, they would surmise that there had not only been a Golden Age, but a Silver Age which succeeded it, followed by a Bronze Age, etc.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

[Helcaraxë]

I agree completely.

MB