Hobbit Population and the age of men

Just a bit of thinking. . .

Men are supposedly the race coming now into power in Middle Earth. All other races will fade, die out, go over seas, etc.

HOWEVER!

Let's compare men to Hobbits.

Men tend to get into wars more, die quicker, and reproduce less.

This especially is the trend among Numenoreans, but even the little people in Gondor seem to have small families.

Or is this just what we see in the Lord of the Rings?

It's been a while since I read the appendices, but I don't remember a lot of cases where there is a huge list of children for any man.

I think of a few big Elf families.

Hobbits, however, tend to have large families. Orphans and bacholars like Frodo and Bilbo seem to be exceptions. Look at Sam! All those kids!

They are peaceful. They take it easy. They live a long time. They live in holes like, and apparently breed like, rabbits.

You'd think Hobbits would be the tribbles of Middle Earth.

If so, wouldn't they out pace the men?

I think they probably did multiply faster, for the reasons you give. Unlike Men they ended up mostly settling in a few places instead of spreading widely all over the lands of Middle-earth. I don't think they would have ever come close to needing more land than what they had in the Shire. I imagine that before that could happen, and not too far into the Fourth Age men probably invaded the Shire, and Middle-earth became unsafe, and the hobbits would have taken more and more to hiding. Can't imagine men not invading eventually, given their greed and the quality of the Shire.

I'm not sure if I see that happening. The Shire may be rich, but there are much richer portions of Middle Earth and a lot of other places to go before you try there.

For one thing the King's Laws would keep them out for a few generations at least.

Followed by which the main concentration of human power was in Gondor. The men in Arnor are fairly weak and much of the land is abandoned. Even with Aragorn's recolonization, they would be in no place to invade the Hobbits, who, considering the Orc invasion involving Bullroarer, can defend themselves.

Also, in these particular humans, you don't seee "land lust" causing wars as often as pure pride and necessity. I doubt fighting Hobbits would be a prideful experience.

Actually, aren't Hobbits merely another race of Man?

My theory...and don't take this as word...is that over time...Hobbits mixed with men...and simply created a new breed of man. It would not be the first time different breeds mixed...I recall the mention of half man/half orc breeds in Bree.

Hmmm... I'd guess that for a few reasons, Men would gain the advantage. For one, perhaps greater ambition... which might even lead them to invade / attack / try to dominate Hobbits. For another, Hobbits seemed more susceptible to things like harsh winters and wolves. And once Men came into prominence and Hobbits tried to sort of hide on the edges of civilization, they may not have prospered nearly as well... just as the Stoors from whom Gollum descended seem to have faded from the Anduin, so too they might gradually diminish.

Elbereth may have something there too... some others I know recently had this ongoing debate about whether Hobbits are actually Men. I haven't done the research to check it myself... but have the vague impression that JRRT says at least one thing to support it, and another thing which suggests they are not. Interbreeding... yeah, maybe eventually... and maybe some of the men got a bit shorter... and the Hobbits continued to grow (imagining what the Shire would trade with Fangorn for ent-draughts - I doubt the Ents would smoke)... until they just sort of merged together and became indistinguishable.

You are correct that Tolkien doesn't seem to indicate large families for Men - at least most of those we have an account of. However, just from the model of ancient societies (I suspect maybe about anything pre-modern, but I'm no sociologist), I myself imagine larger families to be the norm. I've even suggested to others that perhaps not all family members are always given. For instance, we know Isildur had four sons... perhaps he also had daughters, but they were just not mentioned. We know of Elendil's sons Isildur and Anarion... but did Elendil have daughters as well?? Would they simply go unmentioned because they married into other families... and/or because they would not be in line to rule (besides, I think we mostly know about Isildur's various sons because the three oldest died rather memorably and his fourth inherited Arnor)? Anyway, that strays from the topic of Hobbits, but at least speaks to the point of family size.

While there might have been some mingling we never hear about, I am not sure Tolkien indended that the race merged into the race of men. In the beginning of The Hobbit we see they are still suppose to exist. Even though this book isn't as serious in tone and some people do not take everything in it too seriously, I think that something as major as a statement in narrative that hobbits still exist is something I should take seriously. This idea that hobbits became scarce and extremely hidden is so drastically different from the idea of the races merging that without any solid reason to suppose one replaced the other I wouldn't want to. Of course it was a children's story so readers could easy decide not to take the stuff about hobbits too seriously.

Although Hobbits were at one time nomads, those days were long gone and they became settled peoples. They settled in The Shire. The Shire was the ideal location for them. Arnor was pretty desolate. Hobbits were versatile, sure, but to a certain extent. Men were a lot more versatile, they could live in forests, mountains, farmlands, cities or by the coast. Hobbits had more children then men, but I really don't think they were expansionists or pursued expansionist policies, any such Hobbits would not have been Hobbits at all, and no Hobbits were known to want to settle far and wide, apart from some fellow named Napoleon. Hobbits did not wish to establish hegemony-that was clearly the province of Men. They were happy with their situation. The outside world looked grim and dangerous-exactly what the Hobbits wanted to escape. Hobbits were also, oxymoronically, gregarious xenophobes. If a Hobbit from Hobbiton regarded a Hobbit from the East Farthing with suspicion, then imagine how a Hobbit from Hobbiton would have regarded a Hobbit from Dunland. Hobbits, as a race, were very polarized; they treated neighbours with contempt and badgers with hatred. I really do not think they were cut out for widespread expansion.

Actually, aren't Hobbits merely another race of Man?

Click to expand...

Yes.

We know of Elendil's sons Isildur and Anarion... but did Elendil have daughters as well?? Would they simply go unmentioned because they married into other families... and/or because they would not be in line to rule

Click to expand...

The question of the Salic law in Middle-Earth is an ambiguous one. Númenórean laws state that somebody can come to king/queenship through the female line, after the whole Aldarion incident. But the law went through a great deal of change of the years. Elendil and co. were conservatives-and descendants of the female line from Elros. So it would be kind of ironic if they said "no descendants from the female line" straight away. It would have been silly. The whole Salic law thingy, which was brought to the fore after the death of Ondoher and his sons, and Arvedui, pressed his claim, as the descendant of Isildur, the "high king" of Arnor and Gondor, and eldest son of Elendil, the first king, as well as being the husband of Ondoher's only child, Fíriel. The Gondorian council rejected his claim, in the favour of the war captain Eärnil-a member of the royal family, and the saviour of Gondor. They claimed that in a time of war, salic law should be allowed, and that it was allowed in Númenór because Númenór was in a state of perpetual peace. Any continuation of the salic law would take place when a state of peace existed. Plus Isildur's claim of high-kingship could not be re-claimed so many years after his death, and it made more sense for the popular Eärnil to be king-they wanted to avoid any dissonances and a possible civil war. Any civil war would have left Gondor very weak. So a descendant of Meneldil was needed, and Eärnil fitted the bill. Sorry for digressing.

Maybe Hobbits are just Men as Tolkien wanted man to be....?

Something to think about.

Inderjit S said:

... The whole Salic law thingy, which was brought to the fore after the death of Ondoher and his sons, and Arvedui**, pressed his claim, as the descendant of Isildur, the "high king" of Arnor and Gondor, and eldest son of Elendil, the first king, as well as being the husband of Ondoher's only child, Fíriel. The Gondorian council rejected his claim, in the favour of the war captain Eärnil-a member of the royal family, and the saviour of Gondor. They claimed that in a time of war, salic law should be allowed, and that it was allowed in Númenór because Númenór was in a state of perpetual peace. Any continuation of the salic law would take place when a state of peace existed. Plus Isildur's claim of high-kingship could not be re-claimed so many years after his death, and it made more sense for the popular Eärnil to be king-they wanted to avoid any dissonances and a possible civil war. Any civil war would have left Gondor very weak. So a descendant of Meneldil was needed, and Eärnil fitted the bill. Sorry for digressing.

Click to expand...

** - not the mod

*grabs Indy by the collar and begins to shake him*

"Listen... the House of Meneldil, they're USURPERS!!! We only left Gondor IN THEIR CARE... but they later rejected our rightful claim of overlordship!!

*collects himself... the strain goes back out of his face... he releases Indy and straightens back his collar and brushes off his shirt*

"Er - ah, sorry about that... I get quite... worked up... on that matter."

Hobbits lived in the Shire, and except for a small number in Bree, only in the Shire. Men live in many different places in the part of Middle-earth we know of, and that is only one part (North-west, I think). My assumption has always been that the Hobbits gradually dwindled in number, due to natural disasters (flood, cold winters, or the like), or perhaps due to Men usurping their land after the law of Elessar had been forgotten or become neglected. While I guess it is possible that Hobbits and Men intermarried, I would tend to think not, due to Tolkien's notes in the Prologue to Lord of the Rings:

Even in ancient days they were, as a rule, shy of 'the Big Folk', as they call us, and now they avoid us with dismay and are becoming hard to find. . . .
They seldom now reach three feet; but they have dwindled, they say, and in ancient days they were taller.

Click to expand...

I've always assumed that most of the families which are mentioned as having only sons also have daughters, who are not mentioned in genealogies because they were not in direct line.