DF World: Do non-humans have their own countries?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Eh, I don't think it's too surprising, really. Hobbits basically live in an idyllic paradise, and those few who want a bit of adventure can find plenty (for a hobbit, at least) near the outskirts of the Shire. The outside world is in far worse shape, meaning there is a barrier - with the exception of the brief period of time between the end of The Hobbit and Frodo's departure in Fellowship of the Rings, there are monsters lurking about if you go too far afield, so what right-minded hobbit is going to leave? For those very few who do, Gondor is pretty far away (by my measurement, the closest border of Gondor is over 600 miles away from Hobbiton, and that's in a straight line).

Now, why hobbits only survived in the Shire* isn't ever addressed to my knowledge, nor why the Rangers apparently thought this small, insignificant community was worth dedicating so much manpower to protecting. Honestly, with how resilient and scrappy they are shown to be - once you get them out of their comfortable homes and give them some incentive, anyway - I would have expected more to have survived.

*Smeagol's folk seemed to live outside of the Shire, and were clearly some sort of hobbit, but I don't think we ever find out just how old Gollum is - his people may well no longer exist, and if so probably haven't existed for a very long time. Or, who knows, maybe they're the ancient ancestors of the Brandybucks.

Putting aside the question of whether an idyllic agricultural paradise is actually possible at the relevant tech level, you can't steady-state indefinitely in an idyllic paradise without doing some pretty weird things to preserve same. I'm not inclined to believe that hobbits have strict population controls.

The only way I can rationalize no hobbits venturing forth in search of better opportunities due to crowding is if hobbits are somehow going extinct for lack of offspring...while living in an idyllic paradise. Which would make the difficult question how there are any hobbits at all.

[dcarson]

Countries can get complicated. Look at the UK and related bits. You have a separate legal system in Scotland, you have three Crown Dependencies in the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey, and the Bailiwick of Guernsey,

You used to have cities that had Foo quarters where different legal systems applied and things like church law vs secular law.

All too complicated for the default DF campaign but can make things interesting for PCs.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

If country necessitates "nation-state" well, it is hard to define many places that would be nation-states in real life until recently; territorial polities are better described as empires.

I said nothing about nation-states. My base assumption was that a DF world is so dangerous and monster infested that it is impossible to maintain communication and control over realms that it takes many days to travel across.

[KarlKost]

There are some few hobbits outside the Shire, at least in the book. In the region of Bree for example, has perhaps the largest Hobbit population outside of the Shire (the Village of Bree is were the 4 hobbits were supposed to meet Gandalf at the jumping poney Inn, but instead meet with Aragorn).

Sméagol and his brother Deagol (which he killed) were part of the River Folk, other hobbits that lived outside of the Shire.

In other regions, they are a minority race, living along with humans (who are the majority), thou in a few places there may be a prevalence of hobbits over humans. But the Shire is hobbit-only - no other races inside.

They are a race who is only present on the nortern lands, were once stood the fallen human kindgom of the north.

In the Lord of the Rings, it is said that hobbits are "a new kin", probably some kind of "humans" (it is implied that they are some sort of "evolutionary adaptation" of humans). Unlike humans, elves and dwarves, all of which had been planned by the Vala (the Gods) eons before to appear on middle Earth, the Hobbits are something new. That's why Treebeard didnt know what a Hobbit was when it first saw them (supposedly, Treebeard knew all races. In the book, it says "I suppose I'll have to update the list").

It is not mentioned WHEN did the hobbits arose, but there are no mentions of them prior to the third age, so they probably don't have more than just a few thousands of years, maybe even less. And that may be one of the reasons of why they are a very local phenomena and why they are few in number compared to the other races

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Eh, Fantasy species are more like human races, and there have been plenty of nations throughout history that have been essentially made of a single race. This hasn't required them to be particularly well-adapted to their environment (at least not in a genetic sense) - rather, it's more just that most people don't want to move somewhere that everyone looks, speaks, and acts differently than what they're used to, and that the natives are not-uncommonly xenophobic. Large nations are rarely monoracial, of course, but even then other races tended to make up a rather tiny fraction of the population. Once global trade becomes significant, however, things tend to become a good deal more cosmopolitan.

Less true than previously thought.

Early medieval English monks had sufficient knowledge of Africans that they were doodling caricatures of African men in the margins of their books - dressed like the English men they were also doodling, and doing the same things as the English peasants. They've found North African skeletons in English graveyards from around the Crusades era, and not in port cities on waste ground where e.g. a foreign sailor might be buried. Instead they're found in inland Christian graveyards, and with isotopic evidence strongly implying long-term residence in England.

By the time of Queen Elisabeth there were enough people with dark skin (assumed to be African, as they're described as "black-black") in England that the court was issuing letters complaining about how they already had too many people "of our own Nation" in England as it was without the addition of these other people.

There's also a lot of genetic evidence on the Y chromosone in England that contact with e.g. North Africa significantly predates the mercantilism of the Elizabethan era.

This may all be a remnant of the Roman occupation, but it's also a case example of how ethnic diversity actually happens before periods of mass migration - national borders move around, the people living under them do not. Someone conquers the nations around them, their empire splinters two generations later, but the borders end up somewhere else - and in the two generations of unification the citizens moved around internally so you can't draw tidy borders any more anyways.

There's a long-standing Swedish-speaking population along the eastern border of Finland due to this sort of thing - this isn't a language clime like along the France-Spain border, Finish is completely unrelated to the other Scandinavian languages (IIRC its closest modern relative is Turkish).

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Bruno

There's a long-standing Swedish-speaking population along the eastern border of Finland due to this sort of thing - this isn't a language clime like along the France-Spain border, Finish is completely unrelated to the other Scandinavian languages (IIRC its closest modern relative is Turkish).

The Turkish connection is no longer thought to be tenable, but Finnish has plenty of living relatives: Estonian and Hungarian are probably the most familiar to Westerners. There's also lots of related language in Russia, on both sides of the Urals.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Eh, I don't think it's too surprising, really. Hobbits basically live in an idyllic paradise, and those few who want a bit of adventure can find plenty (for a hobbit, at least) near the outskirts of the Shire. The outside world is in far worse shape, meaning there is a barrier - with the exception of the brief period of time between the end of The Hobbit and Frodo's departure in Fellowship of the Rings, there are monsters lurking about if you go too far afield, so what right-minded hobbit is going to leave? For those very few who do, Gondor is pretty far away (by my measurement, the closest border of Gondor is over 600 miles away from Hobbiton, and that's in a straight line).

Now, why hobbits only survived in the Shire* isn't ever addressed to my knowledge, nor why the Rangers apparently thought this small, insignificant community was worth dedicating so much manpower to protecting. Honestly, with how resilient and scrappy they are shown to be - once you get them out of their comfortable homes and give them some incentive, anyway - I would have expected more to have survived.

*Smeagol's folk seemed to live outside of the Shire, and were clearly some sort of hobbit, but I don't think we ever find out just how old Gollum is - his people may well no longer exist, and if so probably haven't existed for a very long time. Or, who knows, maybe they're the ancient ancestors of the Brandybucks.

States routinely protect helpless ethnicities they care nothing about(nor vice-versa) because they are protecting their territory. If a Roma who is murdered by a Gorgio in England there will be angry glances from the law because the laws of England for some reason forbid murder. Even in the middle ages the King of Hungary slaughtered Crusaders who stopped to have a nice pleasant pogram not because he did or did not care for Jews(he probably didn't in fact) but because he did not care for rioters.

The Shire is part of the territory claimed by the Kings of Arnor and has never broken it's treaty of vassalship(it keeps it's own variation of the laws of Arnor, would shelter messengers if any crossed openly, and the last time it was called to arms abroad in defense of the king it responded). It was a point of honor to protect it. In fact it was somewhat idealized and the real world is of course full of the moral short cuts of politics. But there are still precedents. The British detached troops to Greece in 1940 giving up a promising advance for the political purpose of making it clear that they had not abandoned the continent. Whether they did it rightly or wrongly they did it. Likewise America fought for the Philipines rather then abandoning it to gain time to bring forces online. In retrospect that threw a wrench in the Japanese schedule but the point was it was a conscious adjustment to Plan Orange and not at the time considered a strategic improvement. In both of these cases Britain and America respectively let strategy take a backseat to honor.

Now in fact Tolkien would have been annoyed at the idea of whether the Shire was "worth" protecting and considered that rather Denethorean thinking. They were worth protecting because they were Children of Eru.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I said nothing about nation-states. My base assumption was that a DF world is so dangerous and monster infested that it is impossible to maintain communication and control over realms that it takes many days to travel across.

No you didn't, only "countries" was specified. The definition of "country" is more vague then "nation-state" which needs a bit of work itself. If non-humans have polities, whether tribes or city-states capable of carrying on their own foreign relations, it is hard to see how they don't have countries unless "country" excludes such.

[khorboth]

Ok, I try not to go too deep into my Tolkien fandom here, but every now and then it comes out. *cracks knuckles*

Hobbits are, indeed, a branch of Men, though not strictly Human. The earliest (chronological) mention of them is with Smeagol and Deagol in the Anduin valley where they found the One Ring. This is not far from Minas Tirith, though the exact location is vague. Their exact origin is somewhat obscure.

I don't remember where it was detailed (Perhaps Christopher Tolkien's histories based on his father's notes?) but, Hobbit history for quite some time was a series of being moved on by humans. Being good farmers, they would set up farms, produce well, and then humans would kick them out. As the human population swelled through the third age, farmland continued to be at a premium. Hobbits moved to the frontier, set up new farms. Humans came along and took the farms. Rinse, repeat. This lasted until the fall of Angmar stopped the cycle and for a long time, there was not much pressure on the farmland around where the Hobbits had settled. Civilization receded instead of proceeding, leaving behind The Shire as a kind of high water mark (for the age).

The Shrie's main defense is it's inconspicuousness. Buried in the interminable prologue (possibly of The Hobbit) is a passage about how Big Folk can walk through The Shire without even noticing that they are even in a civilized place. That keeps Humans from bothering them. Animals are kept at bay mostly by throwing rocks at them. Hobbits are mentioned a few times as having excellent throwing aim.

When looking at the Hobbit racial traits, it's important to remember that most of the examples in the book are sedentary civilized examples. There are a number of less reputable, less settled hobbits that live near The Shire. They are less stout (though still look fat to humans), hardier, and complain less.

There were a couple of comments in the thread about the Rangers spending lots of effort keeping The Shire safe. The Rangers were actually trying to contain monsters and evil forces in general and combating the westward flow of evil. They were protecting the entire region which included The Shire. Heated statements were made about sacrifices to protect it by Gondorians as well. It was a more general protection, but the specific effect was brought up to prove a point in an argument.

-------

To bring this all back to relevance to the actual topic....

This is the kind of thought I go through when determining weather my races have their own countries. Would they move to the outskirts or would they live as an underclass with better security? Would those that moved to the outskirts have found a way to survive? What would that have looked like, and how would it have affected their current society? If the originating society suffered a total collapse, what would be left behind? Would any outsiders be welcome in that society? Would they be comfortable there? All this influences the interconnected world-building that ultimately answers the question.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Less true than previously thought.

Early medieval English monks had sufficient knowledge of Africans that they were doodling caricatures of African men in the margins of their books - dressed like the English men they were also doodling, and doing the same things as the English peasants. They've found North African skeletons in English graveyards from around the Crusades era, and not in port cities on waste ground where e.g. a foreign sailor might be buried. Instead they're found in inland Christian graveyards, and with isotopic evidence strongly implying long-term residence in England.

By the time of Queen Elisabeth there were enough people with dark skin (assumed to be African, as they're described as "black-black") in England that the court was issuing letters complaining about how they already had too many people "of our own Nation" in England as it was without the addition of these other people.

There's also a lot of genetic evidence on the Y chromosone in England that contact with e.g. North Africa significantly predates the mercantilism of the Elizabethan era.

This may all be a remnant of the Roman occupation, but it's also a case example of how ethnic diversity actually happens before periods of mass migration - national borders move around, the people living under them do not. Someone conquers the nations around them, their empire splinters two generations later, but the borders end up somewhere else - and in the two generations of unification the citizens moved around internally so you can't draw tidy borders any more anyways.

There's a long-standing Swedish-speaking population along the eastern border of Finland due to this sort of thing - this isn't a language clime like along the France-Spain border, Finish is completely unrelated to the other Scandinavian languages (IIRC its closest modern relative is Turkish).

Sometimes ethnicities settle into occupational niches. It used to be a tradition in the Phillipines that Spainiards ruled the land and Chinese the market. Likewise in India, Parsees were native-guides for European merchants and bureaucrats because they couldn't lose caste.