Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

featherlessbipeds.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 428 posts

Re: Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

#111

Post by rob74 »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #108
peyton wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s kinda implied that Sauron’s rings make individuals of the various races more interested in sticking around longer than in producing offspring. Hobbits were relatively unaffected and had lots of children.

But somehow, despite the fecundity of the Rosie Cotton-Gangees, with 13 children, the Shire had a total population of about 100k, the size of a small (edit: but not that small) town (or the UK population in 3000BC). So either pre-reproductive mortality is through the roof, but never mentioned, they haven't been there long[1], or something bad happened recently (before the events in the LoTR)[2]. [1] Except Hobbits se…

Er, in Germany, 100k is the population where a city is allowed to call itself "Großstadt" - so big city, not small town.

In medieval times, people had lots of children, but most of them died very young. Of course this doesn't fit into Tolkien's idyllic description of the Shire, so it's not mentioned, but I guess families with 13 children who all survived to adulthood were the lucky exception...

Re: Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

#113

Post by adhesive_wombat »

rob74 wrote: post #111
adhesive_wombat wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But somehow, despite the fecundity of the Rosie Cotton-Gangees, with 13 children, the Shire had a total population of about 100k, the size of a small (edit: but not that small) town (or the UK population in 3000BC). So either pre-reproductive mortality is through the roof, but never mentioned, they haven't been there long[1], or something bad happened recently (before the events in the LoTR)[2]. [1] Except Hobbits se…

Er, in Germany, 100k is the population where a city is allowed to call itself "Großstadt" - so big city, not small town. In medieval times, people had lots of children, but most of them died very young. Of course this doesn't fit into Tolkien's idyllic description of the Shire, so it's not mentioned, but I guess families with 13 children who all survived to adulthood were the lucky exception...

Well also Rotherham in the UK is a town with over 100k people, though not US-style "small town", it's certainly not a city, and not even a particularly huge town (there are many 100k+ towns that aren't cities: the largest is Reading with nearly 1/4 million)

But that might be just a UK naming thing since "city" means something special (and isn't actually especially related to size: the smallest one is 1600 people).

But yes, perhaps it's not really a "small" town but just a town.

Re: Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

#114

Post by wetpaws »

hef19898 wrote: post #106
gostsamo wrote: post #68

Something not mentioned in the article: Middle Earth is depopulated. Without large market, it does not make sense to produce at scale, nor you will have the capital to do it. The main characters travel hundreds of kilometers down the biggest river around and they don't encounter other vessels or a populated settlement until they reach Minas Tirith. And I'm not even mentioning the missing cities and villages in the in…

The author lost me at tge first paragraph: he never read it, and still he wonders why, in medieval fanatsy setting, there are no pump guns.

If you read Tolkien notes, industrialisation and Mordor as a industrial empire was seriously considered as a major plot at some point.

Re: Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

#116

Post by gostsamo »

yyyk wrote: post #103
gostsamo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internal warfare is caused by competing for the same resources. Orcs must be under external constraints to fight with each other instead of spreading around to occupy/pillage other resources. We can accept that they are constrained to certain habitats and the same could be even said about the dwarfs, however there are many human nations in the books and none of them has created large continues settlement zones. Again…

>Internal warfare is caused by competing for the same resources. Politics is a sufficient condition. Perhaps Sauron would not tolerate 'independent' Orcs he can't use as canon fodder? >Again, the lack of people and trade on Anduin is a shocker for me. Yeah, it's the humans which are hardest to explain away. Some peasants should have thought 'We're tried of paying taxes to Gondor. We'll just move and no one can or wou…

Politics is handwaving for the structural reasons for a conflict. No need for fighting each other if there is an easier gain to be found outside. At least not fights that would be significant enough to suppress the population growth.

Re: Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

#117

Post by odessacubbage »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #46

If you want to see a movie featuring both wizards and industrial technology, check out Wizards (1977) by Ralph Bakshi. Keep an open mind though, Bakshi's movies are a trip.

i'm glad you changed your last name, you son of a bitch

Re: Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

#118

Post by FeepingCreature »

wetpaws wrote: post #114
hef19898 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author lost me at tge first paragraph: he never read it, and still he wonders why, in medieval fanatsy setting, there are no pump guns.

If you read Tolkien notes, industrialisation and Mordor as a industrial empire was seriously considered as a major plot at some point.

Haven't read the notes, but shouldn't Mordor, being an autocracy without a recognizeable middle class and a very lean political system focused on war, have very cheap labor?

Re: Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

#119

Post by lordnacho »

bloodyplonker22 wrote: post #19
r_harriso wrote: post #11

The reason that Tolkien didn’t write an industrial revolution into the history of middle earth is that he hated industry. Hated how it destroyed bucolic village life. Having this take on LoTR is pointless. Just an annoying waste of time.

Tolkien lived in a city in Oxford which was neither bucolic nor a village. It sounds more like you hate industry and wish to return to bucolic village life.

Oxford is known for having some quite stunning villages surrounding it. I went back in the weekend for a reunion, the city itself is still quite pretty with plenty of river paths.

Re: Why hasn't Middle Earth had an Industrial Revolution?

#120

Post by peyton »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #108
peyton wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s kinda implied that Sauron’s rings make individuals of the various races more interested in sticking around longer than in producing offspring. Hobbits were relatively unaffected and had lots of children.

But somehow, despite the fecundity of the Rosie Cotton-Gangees, with 13 children, the Shire had a total population of about 100k, the size of a small (edit: but not that small) town (or the UK population in 3000BC). So either pre-reproductive mortality is through the roof, but never mentioned, they haven't been there long[1], or something bad happened recently (before the events in the LoTR)[2]. [1] Except Hobbits se…

Well they were all over Eriador. There were plagues and other such disasters.
Post reply on HN