Middle-Earth is Dark Age Europe

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

In in the mid-1950s when LOTR was first published there were those who thought it was allegorical to WWII. In the subsequent editions you'll find this printed in the Foreward:

...I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedome of the reader, and the other ins the purported domination of the author.

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.

So I think that while we may find some applicability of portions of LOTR to actual history, I think it would be a mistake to say that Tolkien deliberately mirrored the Dark Ages of Europe in the Third Age of Middle-earth.

[Alcuin]

I agree with you, Old_Tom. What Tolkien does use is real history in many cases, as well as existing stories. The names of the Dwarves are taken from the Voluspo, for instance, while Tolkien says in Letter 163 that ents are in part due “to my bitter disappointment and disgust … with the shabby use made in Shakespeare of the coming of ‘Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill’: I hoped to devise a setting in which the trees might really march to war.” Not to mention that Treebeard with his hemming and hawing is intended to sound like C.S. Lewis; and Sam’s surname, Gamgee, is a term for ‘cotton-wool’ and is taken from the name of a surgeon, Sampson Gamgee, who apparently pioneered its use; Letter 184 is to a “Sam Gamgee” of London who wrote to him; and Tolkien responded by sending him a letter and, as I read the letter, a signed 3-volume set of Lord of the Rings. nazg, the Black Speech word for “ring,” is probably from the Irish word for “ring,” nasc, written nasg in Scottish. We could go on and on, but these will suffice.

The Ruling Ring is almost certainly related to the Ring of the Nibelung, the Andvarinaut. Siegfried is apprenticed to the Nibelung dwarf Mime (> Mîm, the petty-dwarf or Nibin-Nogrim?), and after killing Fafner in dragon-form, from whose horde he takes the Tarnhelm, which renders its wearer invisible; and so forth.

The point is that Tolkien used the stories and tales he loved. Some of them were folktales, some were legends, some myths, and some were history. The man was the leading scholar of Anglo-Saxon and Dark Age European literature of his day; he was an outstanding philologist; and he understood human nature in a rare way, so that all of us who roam around this forum are continually commenting on this or that wry or subtle observation he made through his fiction.

The Lord of the Rings isn’t allegory; at least, not in the sense of deliberate allegory in the way that The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is deliberate allegory. But it is not possible to write such a magnificent piece without incorporating the events of his life and experience.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Old_Tom_Bombadil

In in the mid-1950s when LOTR was first published there were those who thought it was allegorical to WWII. In the subsequent editions you'll find this printed in the Foreward:



So I think that while we may find some applicability of portions of LOTR to actual history, I think it would be a mistake to say that Tolkien deliberately mirrored the Dark Ages of Europe in the Third Age of Middle-earth.

"Mirror" does not equal "allegory".

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

"Mirror" does not equal "allegory".

Whether you say "mirror" or "allegory" does not change the fact that the assertion made in the title of this thread, "Middle-Earth is Dark Age Europe", is false.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Old_Tom_Bombadil

Whether you say "mirror" or "allegory" does not change the fact that the assertion made in the title of this thread, "Middle-Earth is Dark Age Europe", is false.

First, I'd say that disproving one statement by making an equally false counter statement is probably not the best way to proceed.

Second, while I agree that the title is false, many of the remarks made in the initial post are not. Such as, "It should be obvious to everyone that Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age is modelled on Europe circa 900 AD". Modelled I think too strong a word; but the direction is correct.

[Alcuin]

Look, there’s a real difference between saying, “Minas Tirith is {Constantinople | Rome | 4th century Camulodenum},” and saying, “Minas Tirith is like {Constantinople | Rome | 4th century Camulodenum},” and then listing all the reasons why, as well as the reasons why not.

To say that “Middle earth is like Dark Age Europe” is no stretch. Dark Age Europe seems to have been the period of European history of greatest interest to Tolkien in his scholarly studies; and as he wrote, all the things that he knew – the languages and their slow evolution; the people and their habits, politics, wars, and migrations, the general descriptions of the ways of life; and the regret and remembrance of the glory that was once the great Roman Empire (particularly in sixth and seventh-century Britannia, whose frontier was pushed slowly westward until it became “Wales,” “the territory of the alien race,” to the conquering Anglo-Saxons) – give a sense of life and realism to the tales he wove.

The assertion that “Middle earth is Dark Age Europe” is a stretch, but not completely false. That Tolkien’s illustration of the interior of Beorn’s hall is explicitly patterned after a sketch in E.V. Gordon’s 1927 Introduction to Old Norse is well-known and widely accepted because it appears in J.R.R. Tolkien, Artist & Illustrator, pp 122-124. The narrative description of Beorn’s hall matches the illustration quite well, and so it must be presumed that Tolkien had in mind the kind of Norse or Anglo-Saxon halls with which he was quite familiar when he wrote that part of the The Hobbit. (A similar hall is described in Beowulf, for which Tolkien was probably the leading authority in the 20th century.) Meduseld, the great hall of Théoden, seems to be based upon this as well. These are certainly “Dark Age” structures. The few descriptions we have of Elvish ships tend to resemble those of Dark Age longboats. (Vikings were not the only people who built them, but they built the best.)

In a long letter to Milton Waldman in 1951, Letter 131, Tolkien says that “Gondor rises to a peak of power, almost reflecting Númenor, and then fades slowly to decayed Middle Age, a kind of proud, venerable, but increasingly impotent Byzantium.” Notice that he doesn’t say, “Gondor is Byzantium.” He says that Gondor is like Byzantium, which would be (for those of us whose ancestors came from north western Europe) Dark Age Europe; but for Constantinople, it was a Golden Age. And For Gondor, too, the period Tolkien is describing – presumably during the reigns of the four Ship-Kings of Gondor (III 830 – 1226) – is a Golden Age, the height of its power and glory.

You cannot push such analogies (not “allegories”, but rather “analogies”) too far: in Letter 211, written in 1958 to Rhona Beare, he says that “The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many ways they resembled ‘Egyptians’…” and includes a very nice sketch of a Dúnadan king with a crown strikingly similar to the White Crown of Upper Egypt.

Middle-earth is “like” this or that part of Western history in many ways and “unlike” the same parts in other ways. You might find your labors more constructive and enjoyable from finding the similarities and differences rather than in arguing whether or not some deliberate or accidental allegory has or has not taken place, or whether indeed the entire thread is somehow illegitimate because the thesis posed in it is not perfectly stated. I know I would.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Look, there’s a real difference between saying, “Minas Tirith is {Constantinople | Rome | 4th century Camulodenum},” and saying, “Minas Tirith is like {Constantinople | Rome | 4th century Camulodenum},” and then listing all the reasons why, as well as the reasons why not.

I thought this is what I said, the difference between "mirror" and "allegory" lies here, among other things.

To say that “Middle earth is like Dark Age Europe” is no stretch. Dark Age Europe seems to have been the period of European history of greatest interest to Tolkien in his scholarly studies; and as he wrote, all the things that he knew – the languages and their slow evolution; the people and their habits, politics, wars, and migrations, the general descriptions of the ways of life; and the regret and remembrance of the glory that was once the great Roman Empire (particularly in sixth and seventh-century Britannia, whose frontier was pushed slowly westward until it became “Wales,” “the territory of the alien race,” to the conquering Anglo-Saxons) – give a sense of life and realism to the tales he wove.

Too much here to respond to in my limited time. Suffice to say that in early Welsh lit I don't detect a lot of "remembrance of the glory that was the great Roman Empire" or its passing particularly mourned, perhaps I've missed something (although the topic would get us off topic and if we explore that perhaps it should be moved to another forum.) The view of the "conquering" Anglo-Saxons is one that is beginning to change based on DNA and archaeological evidence.

The assertion that “Middle earth is Dark Age Europe” is a stretch, but not completely false. That Tolkien’s illustration of the interior of Beorn’s hall is explicitly patterned after a sketch in E.V. Gordon’s 1927 Introduction to Old Norse is well-known and widely accepted because it appears in J.R.R. Tolkien, Artist & Illustrator, pp 122-124. The narrative description of Beorn’s hall matches the illustration quite well, and so it must be presumed that Tolkien had in mind the kind of Norse or Anglo-Saxon halls with which he was quite familiar when he wrote that part of the The Hobbit. (A similar hall is described in Beowulf, for which Tolkien was probably the leading authority in the 20th century.)

Yes, overall a good point. Just a minor point though: Tolkien was NOT the leading 20th century expert on Beowulf. Not even close. If such a person would be chosen, that would Father Klaeber whose 1922 edition continues to influence students and is the standard edition and commentary quoted in articles and studies of Beowulf. Tolkien did write one of the most influential essays for 20th century Beowulf criticism though: his Monster and the Critics forever changed the way in the which the poem was approached, and though now surpassed, the essay remains one of the important classics of Beowulf criticism that every student of the poem must read. But that isn't quite the same thing as claiming that he was the preeminent Beowulf scholar.

Meduseld, the great hall of Théoden, seems to be based upon this as well. These are certainly “Dark Age” structures. The few descriptions we have of Elvish ships tend to resemble those of Dark Age longboats. (Vikings were not the only people who built them, but they built the best.)

No "seems" about it!! Heorot in Beowulf is called meduseld, the mead hall, several times, and of course there is much in the approach of the Aragorn, Gandalf, Gimli, and Legolas to Meduseld and in Meduseld that is "Beowulfian", the scene in LoTR is clearly mirrored on the approach scene in Beowulf. Good note on the longboats.

You cannot push such analogies (not “allegories”, but rather “analogies”) too far: in Letter 211, written in 1958 to Rhona Beare, he says that “The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many ways they resembled ‘Egyptians’…” and includes a very nice sketch of a Dúnadan king with a crown strikingly similar to the White Crown of Upper Egypt.

It depends greatly on how specific you make the analogies. That the analogies to "Dark Age" Europe work and work well is well known, but in the discussion of any literary text one does not just pin everything to one thing, if the author is any good they have multiple influences in any given situation. What gets some commentators into trouble is that they either overstress one influence or another to the exclusion of others, or attack an author who has done so rejecting the point because they fall into the same trap of overstressing a different influence.

Middle-earth is “like” this or that part of Western history in many ways and “unlike” the same parts in other ways. You might find your labors more constructive and enjoyable from finding the similarities and differences rather than in arguing whether or not some deliberate or accidental allegory has or has not taken place, or whether indeed the entire thread is somehow illegitimate because the thesis posed in it is not perfectly stated. I know I would.

Well said! A pleasure reading your posts Alcuin! Ok, I spent too much time making minor points when I have too many other threads here to respond to. Ah well!

FB

[GreyMouser]

First of all, the title of the thread was deliberately provocative, because I`ve posted on this before, both here- a few years ago- and the old White Council forum, about seven or eight years ago,( foolheartedly stepping into the middle of the Michael Martinez-Martin Read Wars, lending proof to that old African expression,`` When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled``) and received roughly the same response: either Tolkien is sui generis, or that he draws from so many sources that it is impossible to tie him so closely to any particular time and place- with which I disagree.

I`m not saying that Middle-Earth is an allegory of our own world- Aragorn is not Charlemagne- just that the general geography, social structure, and overall political situation very closely resembles Dark Age Europe, and that given Tolkien`s life-long passion for this `northern thing` as he described it, it`s more than a coincidence that the two are so closely paralleled, comparisons to Egypt, Homer and Atlantis -even by Tolkien himself- notwithstanding.

I myself feel caution about accepting Tolkien`s own statements on some of these issues. I think that he was defensive about suggestions of derivativeness.
His statement that the Rohirrim do not resemble the ancient English is either deliberate obfuscation or willful blindness- Shippey in ``The Road to Middle-Earth`` is a good reference.

[Coffeehouse]

Omg.. omg!.. OMG!!!

Vikings = Orcs!? That is so insulting lol

But anyways, although it is of course interesting to see all the similarities between Middle Earth and early Middle Ages life, from things people wear to Dark Age legends and myths to how wars were fought, there are a few interesting names in Middle Earth are surprising and not so geographically absolute as some suggest.. (and showing that Tolkien's influences could well be far more diverse than some of the European geographics suggested in here)

1. In northern Ethiopia there is a region with high mountains, barren lands and lush forests with a temperate climate and great rolling rivers. This region is also heavily Catholic. The region is called Gondor.

2. South of the capital of Norway lies the province of Westfold, and the ancient seat of government in Norway, where in the times of the Vikings local chieftains fought between large plains and thick, pinewood forests.

3. In the Mark (Land in Norwegian) of the Vinguls, or the Vingulmark reigned amongst others, the king Gandalf Alfgeirsson. This was in the Viking Ages.

5. Eastfold. Province in southern Norway, part of the territory of Vingulmark stretching all the way to the Westfold.

5. Middle Earth. Midgard, land of mortals in Norse mythology. Heavy influence on the Anglo-Saxon language from Old Norse due to the Danish and Norwegian conquest of Britain.

So there we go! And that's just my scratch-the-surface knowledge.

I think perhaps the worst assumption one could make is to directly equate Mordor or the Haradrim with Muslims as during the early Middle Ages the Muslims had their Golden Years of unprecedented philosophical, scientific and societal progress which made Europe look like a bunch of losers in comparison

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I think perhaps the worst assumption one could make is to directly equate Mordor or the Haradrim with Muslims as during the early Middle Ages the Muslims had their Golden Years of unprecedented philosophical, scientific and societal progress which made Europe look like a bunch of losers in comparison

That is true - but what DO we know about Haradrim or Khandians? What do we know about Black Numenoreans? They may have been no worse than Middle Age Muslims in terms of culture...

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Gordis

That is true - but what DO we know about Haradrim or Khandians? What do we know about Black Numenoreans? They may have been no worse than Middle Age Muslims in terms of culture...

Yeah. Haradrim are also an interesting peoples, it's too bad their history and geography is confined to being a string of footnotes in ME history. I'm especially curious about any cities they might have and their economy and relationship with the Western areas in ME. And were all in allegiance to Sauron & Mordor?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Yeah. Haradrim are also an interesting peoples, it's too bad their history and geography is confined to being a string of footnotes in ME history. I'm especially curious about any cities they might have and their economy and relationship with the Western areas in ME. And were all in allegiance to Sauron & Mordor?

Well... Harad had been strongly influenced by late Numenor: there were several Numenorean havens along the coast: of them Umbar was the greatest. At first, in mid-Second Age, Numenoreans came as friends and teachers, then they slowly turned into oppressors and colonizers. But by the end of the Second Age Harad was actually ruled by two Numenorean lords: Herumor and Fuinur, enemies of Elendili.
I guess the Black Numenoreans must have built a lot of fortresses in Harad, comparable to what the Elendili built in Gondor: Orthanc and Aglarond, Minas Anor, Minas Ithil and Osgiliath. At least, Harad seemed to be well defended, because for a thousand years Gondor left it in peace. Eventually Gondor grew strong and at the end of the first millennium of the Third Age Gondorians conquered first Umbar, then Harad (TA1050). Gondor held Harad in vassalage for about a thousand years, then lost it.
As for the alliance with Mordor, perhaps it was made not long before the War of the Ring, after Sauron returned to Mordor. However, Harad was firmly opposed to Gondor prior to that and often attacked the southern gondorian provinces.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Well... Harad had been strongly influenced by late Numenor: there were several Numenorean havens along the coast: of them Umbar was the greatest. At first, in mid-Second Age, Numenoreans came as friends and teachers, then they slowly turned into oppressors and colonizers. But by the end of the Second Age Harad was actually ruled by two Numenorean lords: Herumor and Fuinur, enemies of Elendili.
I guess the Black Numenoreans must have built a lot of fortresses in Harad, comparable to what the Elendili built in Gondor: Orthanc and Aglarond, Minas Anor, Minas Ithil and Osgiliath. At least, Harad seemed to be well defended, because for a thousand years Gondor left it in peace. Eventually Gondor grew strong and at the end of the first millennium of the Third Age Gondorians conquered first Umbar, then Harad (TA1050). Gondor held Harad in vassalage for about a thousand years, then lost it.
As for the alliance with Mordor, perhaps it was made not long before the War of the Ring, after Sauron returned to Mordor. However, Harad was firmly opposed to Gondor prior to that and often attacked the southern gondorian provinces.

Mhm I didn't know that. So Gondor and the Harad are long-time enemies. So what you think about the alliance with Sauron. Would you say it was the dual forces of two evil cultures (Mordor and Harad), or a enemy of my enemy relationship, or a forced alliance by Sauron onto the Harad, or a pragmatic, realpolitik strategy by the Harad where they saw a chance in taking out Gondor once and for all in the promise of living peacefully in Sauron's new world

[Gordis]

Frankly I have difficulty to see any human culture as "evil", especially when we know next to nothing about Haradian customs. Haradrim had their own Kings and their own interests, opposed to those of Gondor. They were likely allies, not vassals of Sauron - they came under their own banners. I think at least near Harad entered the Mordor alliance willingly, because it was in their interests. Far Harad and the Easterlings probably were after rich spoils.

Anyway, the valor they all have shown at the Pelennor indicates that they were not Sauron's slaves, but willing allies.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Frankly I have difficulty to see any human culture as "evil", especially when we know next to nothing about Haradian customs. Haradrim had their own Kings and their own interests, opposed to those of Gondor. They were likely allies, not vassals of Sauron - they came under their own banners. I think at least near Harad entered the Mordor alliance willingly, because it was in their interests. Far Harad and the Easterlings probably were after rich spoils.

Anyway, the valor they all have shown at the Pelennor indicates that they were not Sauron's slaves, but willing allies.

I agree. I also have difficulty seeing any human culture as essentially evil. But since in LOTR, Sauron and his Mordor are in all respects the embodiment of evil, wouldn't that make Harad (indirectly or directly) evil too? They must after all, have enjoyed some contact with Sauron himself or at least some of the guys high up in the Mordor hierarchy and they must have known that when Sauron was finished with all Ye Gondorians and elves and dwarves (and hobbits) that the world would be thorougly evil. I would propose (if we say they aren't evil) that they were, in one way or another, duped into thinking that they were fighting something more evil than Mordor itself (namely Gondor whom they seem to have good reason to hate)
So their valor in the Pelennor fields is brave enough, but that does not mean they weren't in some way vassals (perhaps unknowingly), and that they would get the same cut of the blade from Sauron as the rest of Middle Earth were meant to get..

[Alcuin]

“Khand” in Tolkien has been noted to be cognate to -kan, -kand, -khand, as in “Samarkand,” which Wikipedia (admittedly, a sometimes dicey source of information) “derives from the Old Persian asmara, ‘stone’, ‘rock’, and Sogdian kand, ‘fort’, ‘town’.” (Encyclopedia of Arda offers the definition ‘realm’ or ‘land’ for the real world word khand in its entry for “Khand” in Middle-earth, without citing another source.) Merriam-Webster offers a secondary definition of “khan” as “a caravansary or rest house in some Asian countries” (i.e., a hostel).

Whether the folk of Khand were “willing allies” or not is probably beside the point: there is a very good chance that they were long-time worshippers of Sauron, who had styled himself a god-king.

Tolkien’s use of the word, and the geographic position of Middle-earth Khand relative to real-world “khands” or “kands” is suggestive that he borrowed the word, consciously or subconsciously. He may also have borrowed the characteristics of the people who lived in the real-world lands to fill out his subcreation: it would seem a natural thing to do.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Encyclopedia of Arda[/url] offers the definition ‘realm’ or ‘land’ for the real world word khand in its entry for “Khand” in Middle-earth, without citing another source.)

Also note that "Khan" was a common title of the ruler in Turkic and Mongolian languages (ex: Genghis-Khan), so "Khand" might well mean "the Realm"

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Whether the folk of Khand were “willing allies” or not is probably beside the point: there is a very good chance that they were long-time worshippers of Sauron, who had styled himself a god-king.

That is a very good point. If indeed the peoples of Khand and Harad persisted in worshipping Melkor and Sauron (as Melkor Returned) throughout all the Third Age, then the war against Gondor was something like a crusade, a holy war - The God called and they answered.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But since in LOTR, Sauron and his Mordor are in all respects the embodiment of evil, wouldn't that make Harad (indirectly or directly) evil too?

Mordor/Sauron is the embodiment of evil only from the point of view of the author of the Red Book and his sourses- Elven and Dunedain chronicles.
Actually even from those biased chronicles we can glean that Sauron, all things considered, was not a bad ruler of Men:

Now Sauron's lust and pride increased, until he knew no bounds, and he determined to make himself master of all things in Middle-earth, and to destroy the Elves, and to compass, if he might, the downfall of Númenor. He brooked no freedom nor any rivalry, and he named himself Lord of the Earth. A mask he still could wear so that if he wished he might deceive the eyes of Men, seeming to them wise and fair. But he ruled rather by force and fear, if they might avail; and those who perceived his shadow spreading over the world called him the Dark Lord and named him the Enemy [...] In the east and south well nigh all Men were under his dominion, and they grew strong in those days and built many towns and walls of stone, and they were numerous and fierce in war and armed with iron. To them Sauron was both king and god; and they feared him exceedingly, for he surrounded his abode with fire.- Of the Rings of Power...

And especially here:

...this evil thing was called by many names, but the Eruhil named
him Sauron, and men of Middle-earth (when they dared to speak his name at all) named him mostly Zigur the Great. And he made himself a great king in the midst of the earth, and was at first well-seeming and just and his rule was of benefit to all men in their needs of the body; for he made them rich, who would serve him. But those who would not were driven out into the waste places. - HOME 9 "The Drowning of Anadune"

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Also note that "Khan" was a common title of the ruler in Turkic and Mongolian languages (ex: Genghis-Khan), so "Khand" might well mean "the Realm"


That is a very good point. If indeed the peoples of Khand and Harad persisted in worshipping Melkor and Sauron (as Melkor Returned) throughout all the Third Age, then the war against Gondor was something like a crusade, a holy war - The God called and they answered.



Mordor/Sauron is the embodiment of evil only from the point of view of the author of the Red Book and his sourses- Elven and Dunedain chronicles.
Actually even from those biased chronicles we can glean that Sauron, all things considered, was not a bad ruler of Men:


And especially here:

Well, it would be only guesswork to try to imagine what the state of things would be in Middle Earth under Sauron-rule and how he would treat his subjects. I could argue that Sauron's dark, but solid and crystal clear (you may say sound) rule was only an instrument to obtain ultimate power. Any dictatorship in the world, be it Saddam's Baathist, Hitler's Nazi, Franco's Fascist, or Mao's Communist rule, have shown to be crude and heavy-handed, but often with a fanatical behaviour from their followers whom want to prove themselves always, yet when these men have achieved the pinnacle of their power there has been not more freedom as a reward, but confusing messages from these leaders, irrational behaviour, that has made it worse for followers, not better. Suddenly, whatever you do as a follower, will eventually come in a bad light from the leader's POV because of the leader's inherent insecurity as to how much he has to do to keep his power total. Ironic, and that may have been the faith of the Harad had they been victorious with Sauron and thus it might not appear to them that they are vassals until it is too late..

[Alcuin]

I think we can throw some light upon how Sauron managed Middle-earth in the regions he controlled in the absence of the Elves and the Faithful Dúnedain.

In Morgoth’s Ring, “Myths Transformed”, VII, “Notes on motives in the Silmarillion,” Tolkien described Morgoth as ultimately nihilistic:

[Morgoth’s] sole object was [the] destruction [of] Elves, and still more Men… [H]is endeavor was always to break will and subordinate them … before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism… Morgoth would …, if he had been victorious, have even destroyed his own ‘creatures’…

Sauron had never reached this stage of nihilistic madness. He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it. …

Melkor, and still more Sauron…, both profited by … the services of ‘worshippers.’ … To wean one of the God-fearing from their allegiance it is best to propound … to him a Lord who will sanction what he desires and not forbid it. But though Sauron’s whole true motive was the destruction of the Númenóreans, this was a particular matter of revenge upon Ar-Pharazôn, for humiliation. Sauron (unlike Morgoth) would have been content for Númenóreans to exist, as his own subjects, and indeed he used a great many of them that he corrupted to his allegiance.

In Morgoth’s Ring, “Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth” (Debate of Finrod and Andreth), “Tale of Adanel,”

[Morgoth] began to show favor … to the strongest and the cruellest… He gave gifts to them, and knowledge they kept secret; and they became powerful and proud, and enslaved us, so that we had no rest from labour amidst our afflictions.

…if any were caught, our masters, his friends, commanded that they should be taken to the House [for the worship of Morgoth] and there done to death by fire. That pleased him greatly, his friends said…

Note the similarity to the description of Sauron practicing human sacrifice at his temple in Armenelos after he seduced the Númenóreans.

[Gordis]

Well, I was speaking of Sauron, not of Morgoth. There is a huge difference between them in their ultimate goals - as emphasized by Tolkien himself.

Sauron, given the opportunity, would have become the ruler of ME, brooking no opposition, cruel, but also quite rational and even just. One thing can be said in his favour: he was tolerant to all peoples and races of ME (provided they didn't fight against him) and gave career opportunities even to orcs. Shagrat was in command of a huge fortress. Could you imagine a Dunlending (I am not even speaking of orcs) in command of a fortress in Arnor or Gondor?

What life would be like in the Westlands under Sauron? I guess in a way similar to the Shire under Sharkey - with much more order. There would be straight streets, orderly houses, new mills and all sort of machines. There would be medical care and maybe even child allowance. Everything would be regulated to the point of obsession. Everyone would get a personal number (remember how Sau numbered his orcs?) and a personal record. Bureaucrats would write long reports. Nobody who works would go hungry. Nobody who errs would remain unpunished.

No paradise surely, but bearable. Or is it?