In my game, I plan to have settlers head off to found a new town at the fist ford on the Redwater, near to the Iron Hills. Later, when the Easterlings come, this town will come to a dark end (unless the PCs intervene).

However, do we know anything about the region? In particular, there's a great forest halfway down the Redwater. Do we know what it's called or anything else about it?

What about settlements in the region? Tribes of men?

The Shadow Over Dale adventure has some nice ideas but is there anything else?

Thanks

vs

Outside of the Redwater presumably being coloured with iron, there's little we can glean from canon about the region.

In MERP, an Eothraim fort called Buhr Mahrlinge (Buhr Marhling in older books) was at the confluence of the River Running and the Redwater, before they relocated west.

A little further down the Running is Ilanin, a trading post for the Easterlings and folk of Dorwinion.

I'm going to post a couple of links to most useful of the MERP sites - Realms of Arda and the Fan Modules site for MERP in another thread in a sec.

Thanks. A (potentially rival) trading settlement is good addition. Consider it yoinked.

You all probably know about the ICE module River Running, which contains some details of the region.

You may still be able to download it from the MERP website.

I only wish they'd captured the feel of Middle-earth half as well as C7 .

I am trying to avoid using stuff from Merp. My main reason for this is that the default setting of middle 3rd age means that the vast majority of settlements etc will have long vanished.
I do like their maps though and several of the s of the old settlements might make for interesting ruins after I see where TOR are going with their line.
Another reason is that the stuff 'invented' by Merp writers is not canon and,as such, will not be included in any future TOR releases. Thus, I am avoiding the use of names for tribal groupings such as the Sagath, the Eothraim and the Gramuz and s such as Londaroth and Buhr Widu. There may wind up being two completely different and incompatible visions/versions of the Wilderland.

That's true, though the basic Easterling = like the Huns; and Northmen = like the Goths equation still holds. It's clearly what Tolkien had in mind - the Hervarar Saga ok Heidreks, actually. It even has Mirkwood in it. In fact, that could be a useful sketch for a campaign - cursed sword, evil dwarves, shieldmaidens, and horse-riding barbarians.... Hmm. Of course he used some of the ideas already, but the themes are universal.

The MERP (fan) supplement I'd suggest to steal ideas from - if only parts of them - is the - Inland Sea - (link here) which includes a fair number of retcons of the more unbelievable or mistaken things - and was published by Other Hands.

If you take the Huns as what we know now of them (only a minority the archetypical steppe-nomad warrior), I could agree partially - even if not fully convinced. In the MERP canon, the 'Easterling=Steppe-nomad-horseman' was firmly entrenched unfortunately.

From the source, I can not find evidence that Tolkien envisioned "his" TA-Easterlings along this archetype/stereotype.
The "Huns" as enemies is OK, but IMO not justified as the above mentioned horse-warrior type.

Indeed, if we look at the available sources, a typical horse-centered warrior-culture is conspiciously absent from the Easterlings. Good and widespread horsemanship and horse culture is only found among the "good guys", e.g. Éotheod/Rohirrim and Númenóreans.
It seems, Tolkien used this as divider between people with and without Edain heritage or Númenórean cultural influence: Having possession of good or superior horseskills (and horse use) is reserved for the Free Peoples, while the "Easterling" lack them (at least to that degree).

On the enemies' side, only the Haradrim show use of strong cavalry on the Pelennor Fields, but they probably originate from lands that have at least partially been under Númenórean rule or culturaöl influence for extended periods.

Best
Tolwen

I'm not sure that it's unfortunate Tolwen. That particular stereotype is a strong one and easy for people to envisage and utilise.
Although I agree that there is no actual mention of an Easterling horse culture, the fact is that the first large invasion that we hear of is by the Wainriders. I know that some people have put two an two together and come up with chariots but I just don't see that. I think that the Wainriders were an unnamed Easterling group who were actually migrating and carrying their families and belongings in great 4wheeled wagons/wains.
The Huns and their descendants-the Avars and Magyars were all horse peoples and fit this description. I would suggest that the Wainriders also used their wagons in a wagonburg/laager style.
The Goths would also have fitted but they already exist on the plains of Calenardhon.

Absolutely true. IMO it's not important whether it's easy to grasp though, but whether this fits what Tolkien designed the people like. If the former point is the major criterion, many things are fair game that can not be substantiated by the texts. IMO we should put forward and support those interpretations that can be substantiated by the texts, even if they are more difficult to grasp.

A guy with J.R.R. as his forename initials was one of those who saw chariots

This is testified in Unfinished Tales, so there's no doubt about that.

Best
Tolwen

Ok, you got me bang to rights on that one. It only says that their chieftains fought in chariots though, not the whole horde(attempts to backpedal rapidly : ).
So we have Huns with chariot driving chieftains............

Yep

The rest was apparently primarily infantry. In another passage Tolkien implicitly says that the cavalry arm was rather poor in the Wainriders.

Militarily speaking, cavalry is much superior to chariotry. As soon as cavalry began to appear on the historical battlefields, chariots were quickly phased out due to their - in comparison - much lesser flexibility and power (and greater costs!). Only in remote (and backward) regions did chariots survive longer (e.g. in Britain to Roman times).

Coming back to the Wainriders, I can hardly believe the chieftains would sit in outdated vehicles, while their warriors fought in modern cavalry formations. Beside power, it's a matter of prestige. That with which you have greater prowess on the battlefield is of course also more prestigious.

In the past I have long pondered on this apparent "cavalry-poor" outlook of Tolkien's Easterlings and have by now not found a convincing explanation (rather than it is a way to express their backwardness and less noble bearing).

Best
Tolwen

It's interesting to compare this to the epic and Vedic Indian sources, where horses were very high in prestige - and chariots as well - while in fact India is notorious for the poor quality of its horses (primarily because of the climate and lack of proper fodder).

Horses were constantly being imported, in fact, and the number of horses a ruler owned would be a mark of their wealth and power.

The Huns, I think, used smaller steppe horses, rather than the large European variety. But the reason the Wainrider chiefs used chariots was probably a rank thing - possibly remotely a conscious emulation of the Edain/Northmen.

Of course, wains can be drawn by oxen as well, and perhaps the common folk used them to drag their homes rather than the elite's horses?

The passage in UT about Ondoher's defeat in TA 1944 is telling:

It is IMO interesting mainly two aspects:

• First, they had this time a sizable cavalry. that seems to settle the point in favour of it
• Second, this noteworthy cavalry force was unexpected (probably from the Wainrider's newfound allies) and thus not normal for Wainriders, with whom Gondor had almost 100 years of experience in military conflicts.
• Third, it speaks of the chariots as the Wainrider's normal - and expected - mobile forces arm. This suggests that the chariots were not only prestige vehicles for chieftains, but rather the primary mobile weapon platforms employed by a sizable Wainrider force.

Best
Tolwen

Huh, I was pretty sure of the Hervarar Saga link. This tends to support it, after all. The Wainriders are not the Huns - rather their allies are (whoever they are). The sudden appearance of the Huns historically and their expulsion or subjugation of the Goths from the steppes tends to also parallel the destruction of the Kingdom of Rhovanion.

Man, you guys have some great conversations on here.

Note Frodo's vision when he gazed eastward from upon Amon Hen: "...and out of the East Men were moving endlessly: swordsmen, spearmen, bowmen upon horses, chariots of chieftains and laden wains..." Good stuff .

Since you've already mentioned Unifinished Tales & we're outside C7's license (again ), take another look at the chapter Cirion & Eorl concerning the preliminary stages of the Battle of the Camp.

The Wainriders overran Ondoher's host with their "war-chariots" & "a force of cavalry greater than any that had been expected." There are additional entries.

So, it seems you're spot-on with the mix, though we're left hanging as to the exact composition.

My jury's still out (so to speak) concerning the comparison of the Easterlings to some prehistoric variant of the Huns, but I'm going to mull-over your points.

BTW, I agree with you Halbarad concerning MERP. I don't like to slam them after the fact because they did the best they could (I even knew one of their designers & he was a decent chap), however, I never thought they captured the feel of Middle-earth adequately. Even when I downloaded a bunch of their modules free at MERP.com, I'd read through them & go, "Eh, next." Now, TOR on the other hand gets it right...

Another thing to remember, if it hasn't been emphasized already: AFAIK, the Easterlings were not a single unified culture. It's a generic name for what appeared to be a large number of cultures, perhaps a number of distinct civilizations. The bearded guys with axes, the horsemen with bows, and the chariot-riding chieftains were all called Easterlings but they might have come from lands far distant from each other, and might have had little in common except servitude to their unnameable god-king.

There's room for both Huns and Sumerians.

That's an excellent observation Shaneivey and one that I was going to suggest myself. There's room for all sorts under the generic banner of Easterlings.
Following a little more reading, i find that i am starting to agree with Tolwen( to a certain degree anyway). The Wainriders and the Balchoth do seem to consist, in the main,of infantry. The Balchoth in particular seem to have possessed only very basic arms and armour. I can almost see them now as Proto Slavic or very early Germanics(with added chariots, of course-or is that just the Wainriders?)
I still think that small bands of raiders are likely to be mounted bowmen though and that the Hunnic stylings favoured by Merp are not entirely unbelievable, especially in that context.

That's exactly the problem I see here. It's not one of game designs, but of inner consistency of the game world that gives me a headache.

On the one hand we have people with a very strong and age-old (since the Second Age) horse culture among the rhovanic Northmen (whom MERP called Éothraim), and all their neighbours (and later conquerors) in the East without a comparable one. In the case of the Goths and Huns, both had horse-centered (or at least with the horse in prominent use) cultures in the southern Russian steppe, since it's the most natural way of living there.

The point I'm thinking about is that all these Easterling cultures in Rhovanion have had very long contacts (probably both peaceful and military) with the Northmen and even though cavalry is clearly superior to chariots as a mobile force, they never adopted it to a similar extent as well. If you see your neighbour has this great force - or in peace to move flexible from A to B, I would be very interested to get this ability as well.

This continued lack rendered them artificially inferior, especially in highly mobile operations (for which the plains of Rhovanion were well-suited). Normally, you would expect that people with such a disadvantage in quick strikes, cattle raiding etc. will surely adopt this new style of warfare within - at most - a few generations as well - especially since you are likely to get pulled off in most such quick strikes by the riders.

Best
Tolwen

My thinking is if there's a pretty good reason to adopt a custom or technology and a people resists it, it's because they - or their leaders - have some sort of investment in the status quo.

If the chariots, wagons, etc., of the Easterlings are culturally important, then there must be a reason for it. Perhaps these transports serve a religious or status hierarchy. Wagons containing religious shrines were known among the historical Scandinavians, for instance.

In terms of unrealistic fantasy universe rules, however, it's possible that the horses best equipped to be used as the Northman do have a spiritual connection to their human counterparts - like the horses of the Elves do to their masters - and refuse to cooperate.

You raise some interesting points. The cultural thing is perfectably acceptable for me - people are known to have done worse. In these cases, the trend is though to keep these things in a ceremonial role rather than a practical one on the battlefield. If you do not, you are unlikely to be a major player in the area in the long run.

The 'unrealistic fantasy universe' thing is another one of course. In this case we have to factor Sauron as the demonic counterpart in as well. He was interested in the success of his - then unknowing - pawns and would have arranged (through his servants of course) for the import of horses from the East that were 'compatible' if the others were unsuitable.

The horses of the Rohirrim (and their predecessors) seem to be of larger breeds, e.g. more likely to medieval horses bred for carrying greater loads (e.g. heavily armed and armoured riders).
The historic steppe horses were OTOH considerably smaller, though much tougher and with less demands on intensive care.

In UT, Tolkien speaks of the original Rhovanian horses as being similar, small and tough, though hard to tame for riding.


EDIT:I guess a point are the sources. The information is a bit sparse, and it is generally no problem to have other Easterling groups, that fit more to the steppe nomad cliché. There is no reason to exclude it per se.
My problem with the 'suspension of disbelief' is that both groups that almost brought Gondor to its knees (Wainriders and Balchoth) - and thus the most powerful Easterlings encountered - are both conspiciously poor in cavalry. Their successes they achieved with the well-known tactical disadvantage. If there were other Easterlings with powerful cavalry, adding this to the existing repertoire is most natural IMO, and would make these groups even more powerful (something almost no political or military leader is willing to pass by). Interestingly, all steppe nomad peoples from the Huns to the Mongols were very practically minded people and flexible concerning the addition of new assets to their arsenal if the lacked it. Without ideological problems they added every advantage (e.g. siege technology) or force they could get from subjugated peoples - or others that were willing to shre them.
Life in the steppe was always a hard one, and being flexible both in body and mind was a major advantage (and sometimes prerequisite) for surviving and flourishing there.

Best
Tolwen

I for one don't see any problem with your take on developing a limited spiritual connection with the steeds - I think it's a solid idea - It's a Fantasy RPG.

Tolkien wrote about this more than once.

You mention the Rohirrim & the descendents of the Mearas. Note the great description of Eorl the Young & his taming of the horse he named Felaróf following the death of his father, Léod:

"You loved your freedom, & I do not blame you that. But now you owe me a great weregild, and you shall surrender your freedom to me until your life's end."

Appendix A, II, The House of Eorl, LOTR, p. 1065 (50th Anniversary Edition).

TOR covers the Dwarves & their Ravens well, & we can certainly discover additional entries on this subject through the books.

Your players will probably enjoy this type of development - if you keep it balanced.

I think that Mim's find from Amon Hen is very useful here.
When we first meet the Wainriders the description says that their chieftains fought from chariots. By the time they return, chariots seem to be the fighting platform of choice for the warrior class.
The next lot are the Balchoth, who seemingly possess neither decent cavalry nor the chariots of their forebears.
Finally, Sauron's allies in 3019 have swordsmen,spearmen,mounted bowmen and chieftains in chariots.
Perhaps this could be interpreted as a gradual shift away from chariot based warfare towards horsemen in the steppe warrior/Hunnic style. It seems that only the chieftains remain in chariots at the end of the third age. Perhaps Jefferwin has a valid point with his idea that the chariots are status symbols. Historiclally speaking, the Nobility are traditionally and notoriously resistant to change.

This is absolutely valid, and such a shift is natural and what I would expect. Therefore it is a good rationalization. The thing I find hard to swallow is that they (the various rhovanic Easterlings) should need almost 1,200 years to realize that for the mobile strike force, fighting with cavalry is much smarter and more effective than from chariots - especially when they have faced such cavalry on numerous occasions over these said 1,200 years. And even then they still employ chariots!

If such a development would be stretched over, say, 200 years, this would still be a lot, but believable in such a fantastic environment.
IMO one of the great strengths in Tolkien's design lies in the fact that he only very seldomly needs to take the "it's a fantasy world" explanation. And if he discovered an incongruency or was asked by a reader, his solutions were normally geared towards finding a real or believable explanation.

Best
Tolwen

In antique armies chariots play the role of middle-age heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry requires heavy horses and stirrups. Huns probably didn't use stirrups and should had short legged horses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

Chariots were phased out after cavalry was first adopted. The invention of cavalry in the western hemisphere is mostly attributed to the Assyrians. early reliefs from the 9th century BC show cavalry. Stirrups were introduced in the West probably by the Avars in the 7th or 8th century. between that, we have a wide range of cavalry warfare with both heavy and light versions.

Best
Tolwen

On the other hand, chariots make great archery platforms, better than horses. Hence their use as such in the Mahabharata and in ancient Egypt.

They remained in use for ritual purposes and games in Rome and Greece long after they were phased out as war technology.

In Egypt, they also saw use as opposed to cavalry for some time after their neighbors adopted riding, albeit before the invention of complex saddles and stirrups.

A scythed chariot was in use in India as late as 475 BCE - long after the development of mounted troops.

The Chinese used chariots en masse as late as the 5th century BCE. Later dynasties still used them as officer's transports even after the adoption of mounted archers, cavalry, and other mounted units.

Caesar, of course, notes the use of the chariot by the Celts in the 1st century BCE - while his forces mainly used mounted scouts and auxiliaries.

So it can take many hundreds of years to drop the use of the chariot, and apparently, they make better command centers and archer's nests than being on a horse, since the driver and the officer are separate people...

Yes, they have a niche value, but not for general use. They are much more inflexible, as they are much more dependent on terrain (i.e., the need flat terrain).
In addition, they use a lot of resources, i.e. you have to invest much more resources to get the same output.

Thus, as already said, for niche use (or representative/ceremonial ones) it is not that difficult to accept a longer use for chariots. What I was talking about, was the use as the primary mobile strike force.

From all this discussion, I think there is a fair solution for the time since the Wainrider Wars. In the first war, they occupied Rhovanion and swept away the remnants of the 'Éothraim' (to use a simple phrase for them). Sheer numbers brought success here. The defeat of Gondor was for similar reasons: surprise, numbers, tactical skill. In the second war, the Wainriders still used their outdated chariotry for the mobile force and were soundly defeated. In the third war, they recognized the need for an update to this force and employed sizable cavalry auxiliaries to do this job. This nearly spelled the doom for Gondor.

After their final defeat, they retreated into southeastern Rhovanion, far beyond the reach of Gondor. They adopted cavalry for their mobile force. 500 years later, the Balchoth came with their primitive equipment and again by sheer numbers (not by modern equipment) they almost destroyed Gondor. Afterwards, they most likely retreated similar to the Wainriders and updated their arsenal. It is not unreasonable to assume that those Easterlings coming to the Morannon from the East (whom Frodo saw) were descendants of the Balchoth, now living in southern and southeastern Rhovanion and having adopted more modern tactics and equipment.

So, both big invaders came from the East with more ancient and outdated mobile forces, but through surprise and numbers were able to overcome the principally superior cavalry of the western armies.

The problem remains for the time before the mid-19th century. Here we have 'Easterlings' in Rhovanion together with the 'Éothraim`for almost 1,900 years. It is extremely unlikely that that they have only looked to them and endured their superiority in riding and horse skills without doing anything against it.

My explanation would be that not only the 'Éothraim' suffered from the Plague in the mid-17th century, but that also the (cavalry-using) Easterlings paid an even higher price (the Northmen are said to have suffered 50% casualties from the disease). Thus neither Northmen nor indigenous Easterlings were able to put enough resistance against the Wainriders, since their numbers were so low. Thus, their principally superior cavalry was not able to do anything serious against the chariots due to lack of forces.

That sounds at least like a solution that does not need "it's a fantasy world" approach

Best
Tolwen

That seems like a reasonable solution, Tolwen.

Yeah Tolwen, that works for me.

I don't have my copy of UT with me at the minute but something has occurred to me.
Please bear with me.

The Wainriders invade, the plague shattered Northmen capitulate into slavery or flee. Some to Dale and some to Gondor. Such as do fight are defeated in battle along with their Gondorian allies before relocating to the Anduin Vale.
Rhovanion is enslaved and the Northman horseculture is perceived by the Wainriders as having been shattered. During their next attempted invasion of Gondor they are caught out by a Northman revolt at home and an unexpected flank attack by 'a great Eored'.
The victory over the Easterlings is a pyrrhic one for the Northmen and those who remain relocate to the Upper Vales of the Anduin where they become the Eotheod.
Now my point. It is likely that the Wainriders will know nothing of the Eotheod at this point as their closest allies(Gondor) are unaware of their status or how many remain. I don't recall that there is any mention that the Eotheod actually took part in the 3rd Wainriders War. It is entirely possible that the Eotheod cavalry who found the dead Prince Faramir(?) were in fact Foederatii, the Northmen who had relocated to Gondor and taken service at the time of the first invasion. I suggest this because much is made of the other two 'Rohirrim' interventions under Eorl and Theoden, yet there are no references to a similar event at this time.
It's an out of sight, out of mind thing. Gondor is a primarily infantry army(IIRC). The Northmen are perceived to be nothing more than a few mercenary units in Gondorian service. Heavy chariots seem to still be a good bet in those circumstances especially as the new allies have cavalry who are not afraid to mix it up in melee.

That could be, though I tend to favor a version in which these are some kind of mercenaries or a detachment sent by the Éothéod's leader - though not a full host like with Eorl or Théoden.
I base this upon the observation that they are called by their own name and that their involvement foreshadowing the friendship between Gondor and Rohan.

You are right though, that some of these people will have found their way into Gondor. I tend though, that they have been assimilated into the Gondorian society and military structure.

Since Gondor sems to have relied on these people (when they resided still in Rhovanion) as the main source for cavalry, I see this era as the beginning of the development of a true Dúnadan cavalry (out of need). After the days of the kings, the Éothéod were no longer able to provide such allies, and since cavalry was obviously needed, the Dúnedain began to develop one themselves. The knights of Dol Amroth in the LotR are then the result of this development.

Concerning the Easterling cavalry in Rhovanion, I'd like to point out that this is probably not the steppe nomad cliché, with a society centered upon the horse's back. Historically, these have been regularly far superior to the forces of settled people. They rely on vast steppes though, and Rhovanion is too small for this. Since the areas east of it only produced more primitive (non-cavalry) cultures in the form of the Wainriders and Balchoth, it seems like the territories east of Rhovanion were not steppes either. So I propose to model these people omn other cultures rather than Huns or Mongols. What about Persians/Sassanians as a real-world model or inspiration? They were a powerful people with some quite advanced and fearsome cavalry units.

Best
Tolwen

Just re read Cirion and Eorl. It was during the reign of Earnil that the Eotheod relocated to the upper vales of the Anduin. That sort of blows my 'out of sight, out of mind' theory out of the water. The only other thing I can think of is that the revolt against the Wainriders diminished the Northmen to the point where they were no longer regarded as the serious threat that they once might have been.
Perhaps they did not regain anything like their earlier strength until the time of the Balchoth. This may be why there is no record of a great host of the Eotheod taking part in the 3rd Wainriders war. Perhaps those who did fight were auxiliaries in the army of Gondor rather than a host in their own right.

I also thought it interesting to note that the cavalry allies and the chariots charged into the disordered lines of the Gondorian army. That suggests to me that they were probably not mere arrow platforms nor that the horsemen were in the Hunnic style.
Even though the Gondorians were in some disarray, lightly armed nomad horse raiders would still need to be suicidal to get in amongst them. Sassanians with their cataphracts are starting to sound like a good fit.

Yep. Concerning development, Sassanians might not be bad, but I would put them later. At least some development in these people is necessary IMO (the Éothraim/Ehwathrumiska develop as well; first into the Éothéod and later Rohirrim). What about the following analogies and general frameworks for models:

• Original Easterlings (TA 1-1851): Achaemenid Persians and partially perhaps early Parthians (already having early forms of Cataphracts as well as light cavalry).
• Wainriders after TA 1944: Take up much of the former "Achaemenid" culture, but modifying and developing it. Resulting model are the developed Parthians
• Balchoth after defeat in TA 2510-45: Take up the "Parthian" culture, but developing it further, resulting in the "Sassanians" that still exist at the time of the LotR.

Best
Tolwen

Funny, I always thought of the Sassanians and their antecedents as a model of a "good" culture for the most part. I'm personally quite interested in the Shahnameh and other Persian literature.

There's a couple of reasons why I think Tolkien would have felt this way as well. Firstly, they are a monotheist culture with strongly defined concepts of right and wrong (as opposed to -say - the Huns under Attila) and do not appear in the Germanic sources as adversaries.

Finally, Koresh (Cyrus) appears as a hero in the Old Testament, and the Persians are generally pro-Jewish.

Jason Fisher argues in Tolkien: A Study of His Sources that the Easterlings (2011, p.91-) were explicitly modeled on the Huns and the Northmen on the Goths. His arguments detail a great number of resemblances in the fictional history. He also draws parallels with the Gepids and Avars.

Historically, however, the term "Easterling" was used for the Hanseatic League in England. Spenser and Holinshed also use it to mean Northeastern Europe - i.e., the Baltics and Russia. The term may be related to the Estii, or Old Prussians.

Perhaps if we are to reject the Huns as a model, the Slavs might be a better one - particularly for the native inhabitants of the Sea of Rhun? Certainly the term Variag appears to link Khand to the Varangians and their Russian descendants.

Once again you all have generated a fascinating discussion.

Many times over the years I've considered the composition of the Easterlings in comparison to historical examples (I'm a historian) & run through a host of possibilities - but I've never considered the Persians, of whatever mix. Oh great, now I have to add them to an ever-growing list of maybes .

Seriously though, I suspect that the multiple explanations of Easterlings at the time of the War of the Ring in LOTR indicate multiple peoples who fell under the sway of Sauron. IMHO, we may conceivably have room for your explanations.

Several of you mention the connection with the ancient Huns & Goths (or Ur-Goths?) & I tend to agree. One quick question, however, concerns Tolkien's love of languages & the few references we have to the names of Easterlings.

In The Silmarillion we see Uldor the Accursed, Ulfang the Black, & Ulfast. What do you guys think about the origins of these names? (bearing in mind that thousands of years had transpired by the time we roll around to the War of the Ring). My take leans toward a more Northern sound, say, ancestors of the Ur-Goths.

On the flip side, however, have any of you seen David Day's sketch of the Balchoth on p. 25 of his book, A Tolkien Bestiary? I like his take on them from a visual perspective...

One more thing. What's everyone's take on the Variags of Khand? They're another people that I've wracked my brain over - everything from the ancestors of the Ur-Goths to Seljuk Turks. I'm curious to hear what you guys think.

I see exactly what your are saying Jefferwin and everyone involved is providing compelling arguments to back their case. If you read one of my earlier posts you will see that I may be iin agreement about a possible Slavic style culture for the (current) indigenous Rhun Easterlings(descendants of the Balchoth).
I also get what your hinting about the Prof and his religious convictions and that he might not view the Sassanians as a model for an evil race on the grounds of their monotheism.
I know that there is a theory about the Variags being Varangians and Khand being Kiev but bear with me. A previous discussion has Dorwinion as part of he Gondorian Empire at it's greatest extent. A compelling argument was that, although part of the empire, it was in fact the land of a client King(probably of Northman origin).
Look at the map of he region. The Sea of Rhun bears more than a passing resemblance to the Black Sea. Imagine then that the Carnen and the Celduin represent the Dneipr and the Dniestr rivers. Mordor suddenly looks a whole lot like Turkey/Asia Minor(Minas Tirith as Byzantium/Constantinople anyone?) means that the settlements along the Celduin may be similar to those of the Kievan Rus with Slavic peasants and a wealthy ruling class of Northman traders and warriors. The capital of Dorwinion might equate to Kiev itself or, Dorwinion could be the Khazar Khaganate. Now there is a bunch of Easterlings that the Prof might have seen as good guys. Unlike their predominantly Muslim neighbours, the Khazars or at least their warrior aristocracy, were Jewish.
I think that the perceived morality of Middle Earth is based very much on the Profs very strong religious convictions. I think that mono theism vs pantheism may be less important than the perception of the historical relationship with Christianity.
Big beardy guys with axes, Variags of Khand sounds like Varangians of Kiev. It's hard to ignore that coincidence though.


historical relationship with the Christian faith.

Please ignore the last line of my previous post. The emoticons were meant to refer to the bit about big beardy guys with axes. The bit about the relationship with Christianity was repeated by accident as I am looking after my youngest daughter this morning while her mum is out at the hairdressers.
I thought I better clarify this in case anyone thought I was dissing Christianity. I'm not. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to.

Tolwen, in Cirion and Eorl it mentions that it was normal for the young women of the Wainriders to take up arms in defence of their homes. A possible Scythian/Sarmatian element?
What do you think of the notion that the Balchoth may have been similar to Dark Ages Slavs(or Bulgars if you buy into my Minas Tirith/Constantinople theory)?

A number of different and noteworthy points have been brought forward here. I noticed that all of the suggestions so far have areas where they fit good, while being more difficult in others.

• Parthians/Sassanians: Militarily, their tactics and troops would fit very well with the scarce evidence. As Jeff pointed out, other parts may not fit as well.
• Slavs: Regionally, they may fit well, but militarily it is not as good. In addition, especially the eastern Slavs are traditionally adapted to heavily forested areas, something probably not very good for eastern Rhovanion. Southern or southeastern slavs may be more suited. Is their historic military compatible?
• Scyths: This was a colloquial term for Greeks, which included a number of people living in the steppes. In that it similarly generic as Tolkien's "Easterling". The Scythians were traditionally steppe-nomad types, more similar to Huns or Mongols. And the steppe-nomad model is problematic as we know.

What I am very careful is to take regions of Middle-earth as a pendant to a historc region on earth (e.g. Minas Tirith = Constantinople) and the corresponding equation of neighbouring territories on Earth with those in the same direction on Middle-earth. Also I am very hesitant of equating historic people with those in Middle-earth.
Without any doubt, Tolkien took historic models, but I do not think that he equated them (in fact I seem to remember that he was very critical of such simple analogies). This makes it difficult to take fitting models. One aspect of a people may fit, another not.

So we would need "Bulgars" with Parthian/Sassanid cataphracti or clibanarii (but not the Sassanian "good" monotheism) with the force and dynamics of the invading Huns or Mongols for example.
This makes simple equations for the Easterlings so difficult. Perhaps we have to abandon the idea that we can take one historic example and solve all aspects of a one Easterling culture (e.g. Wainrider or Balchoth) with that.

Even in the documented western people in Middle-earth (e.g. the Northmen), they only represent parts of their real-world ancestors. For example, the Goths became christianized only after their expulsion from the southern Russian steppes (the supposed "Middle-earth" spatial equivalent). And then they even were Arians, which was fiercely contested and persecuted by Catholicism. In their "steppe-riders" time, they were traditionally polytheistic germanics (Odin, Thor etc.) and in that certainly not compatible with Tolkien's own religious convictions.

If these post Wainriders would be considered as "Parthians" with a similar religious diversity (a monotheistic branch among them) as their real-world model, and the post-Balchoth as "Sassanians" (with a monotheistic state-religion), we could see the evolution (montheism becoming prevalent) of this monotheistic religion (founded earlier when Gondor still held influence here) as the western influence. The "good" Zoroastrian monotheism might then be modified (perverted) by Sauron. He was revered by his people as *the* god, taking the place of the more benevolent original variation. This could change in the Fourth Age again, once Sauron has vanished.

This is only an example that monotheism in a real-world is not a major obstacle, if you design it the right way. This is also not made as a "right" solution, only as an option what could be made of the variables we have.

In essence it is a good question, which aspect of a historical people you judge most important in a given context as a model for a Middle-earth culture. The other, minor aspects than are modified to meet the framework provided by Tolkien.

Best
Tolwen

I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent on this , but I actually thought that any religions we know of in Middle Earth were polytheistic. We don't really know anything about the religious practices of most of the peoples.
I think my point was that with his devout religiosity, specific to Christianity, that a non Christian mono theism is as likely to be the model for the bad guys as a polytheistic one. I don't actually know if anyone worships the Valar pe se, but their existence as a force for good could be construed as an acceptance of polytheism as better than the wrong type of monotheism.
Anyway, perhaps I'm starting to imgagine a slight bias in the Prof that's not actually there.

Back to what we were talking about before we hijacked Voidstates thread though. (sorry Voidstate..... )

I think we have all concluded that no single race can be used to represent the Wainriders or the Balchoth and that's why I am being careful in my choice of words. 'Similar to', 'Aspects of' and 'elements of' are my catchphrases from here on in.



Ps I agree with Mim. This has been and will hopefully continue to be a very interesting topic.