Jump to content

Talk:Dol Amroth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Line of Princes

[edit]

I have removed Erchirion as name of the 15th Prince, and Amrothos as the 16th: the only reference to these names I can find is as sons of Imrahil (brothers of Elphir and Lothíriel), not as his remote ancestors. [[User:Anárion|Ана́рыён]] 19:55, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should i add a list of princes? I believe it is important for this article. pls advise --Dman170 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Tolkien's list provides essentially no useful information. See below, sub "Garbage". -- Elphion (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source Material Used?

[edit]

Where exactly did the description of Dol Amroth's city quarters come from? MERP or something? As far as I know, there is no extant description of Dol Amroth anywhere in Tolkien's writings. --Sephiroth9611 03:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is MERP material rather than anything Tolkien wrote. --CBD 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placed Notability Tag

[edit]

Not the subject of multiple independant secondary sources as required by WP:NN and does not have any real world content as clarified by WP:FICT [[Guest9999 22:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Garbage

[edit]

Much of this article is garbage. (added later: but now completely rewritten -- 26 September 2009)

  • "Imrazôr was himself the son of Adrahil I, Prince of Dor-En-Ernil." is wrong on virtually every count.
  • Imrazôr and Mithrellas were probably legendary. Unfinished Tales gives a completely different account of the beginning of the princedom.
  • The Silmarillion says flatly that the only source of elvish blood in Men is through the descendants of Elros and Elrond.
  • There was no "Prince of Dor-en-Ernil" (Prince of the the land of the Prince??).
  • Adrahil ("I") is never called prince of anything.
  • Adrahil ("II") is never given an ordinal.
  • Edhellond is never called a port, and there is no evidence of significant trade with Men.
  • The description of the political relationship between Dol Amroth and Gondor goes far beyond anything Tolkien wrote.
  • What's the source of "Cobas Haven"?   Never mind -- found it.
  • Essentially the only thing known of the City of Dol Amroth is that it contained the Seaward Tower -- whose location within the city is nowhere described.
  • "The city is noted as one of the largest in Gondor." Where?
  • "It was probably the second largest at the end of the Third Age, after Minas Tirith." is probably false, at best OR.

Basically, the article needs to be rewritten from top to bottom. And is there any point whatever in reproducing the table of unknown princes?? Elphion (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about someone delete them? It looks ugly on the article. I have never even heard of the list of princes in the article. KeeperOfTheKeys (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a table from The Peoples of Middle-earth, representing a line Tolkien started to work out, then abandoned. We might want to keep the few names at the end around Imrahil. I'll think about it when I come back to do the rewriting implied above. Elphion (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at this article in awhile, but I agree, it is full of garbage. Elphion, if you aren't going to take a crack at rewriting, I think I will at some point. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make an attempt. Give me a day. Elphion (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewriting done. Elphion (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Very well done. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Elphion (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In a note written in December 1972 or later, and among the last writings of my father's on the subject of Middle-earth, there is a discussion of the Elvish strain in Men...Galador (first Lord of Dol Amroth, T.A. 2004-2129) was the son of Imrazor the Numenorean, who dwelt in Belfalas, and the Elven-lady Mithrellas. She was one of the companions of Nimrodel. But though Mithrellas was of the lesser Silvan race (and not of the High Elves or the Grey) it was ever held that the house and kin of the Lords of Dol Amroth was noble by blood as they were fair in face and mind," Unfinished Tales. Yet the September 26, 2009 re-write largely ignores the Elven descent of the Prince and people of Dol Amroth. This sundering seems to disagree not only with Christopher Tolkien's redaction of his father's final notes, but also with the interpretation published by J.R.R. Tolkien himself. Whence, the interpretation that "Imrazôr and Mithrellas were probably legendary" within the context of the legendarium? If "The Silmarillion says flatly that the only source of elvish blood in Men is through the descendants of Elros and Elrond," in contradiction to LotR's implications, particularly Legolas's unambiguous recognition of Elvish blood in Imrahil, on what grounds is more weight given to Sil than to LotR? EylonTheGreen (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My remarks above are not part of the rewrite, which does present both traditions. I certainly do not "largely ignore" the tradition of Elvish descent. I don't follow your remarks about The Silmarillion, as I don't use it as a reference in this article. Both traditions are clearly stated only in Unfinished Tales. I disagree that The Lord of the Rings should necessarily be given more (or less) weight than Tolkien's later writing. For example, Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings and The Road Goes Ever On has clearly fallen under the Ban of the Valar; but in later writing, Tolkien wrote against that. It would be irresponsible not to mention both sides. Elphion (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added:
Also, you make a big step from Tolkien's phrase "house and kin" to "Prince and people". Any infusion of elven blood in Dol Amroth came (by Tolkien's account) only from Mithrellas, and therefore only to the direct descendants of Galador and Gilmith, not to the population at large. Elphion (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would just point out that LotR as a published work would be the basis on which all other works would eventually have to conform as per Tolkien's own self-prescription. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. Certainly Tolkien felt bound by what he had already published, and tried to keep within those bounds -- many passages in Letters show this. But he was not above revising the published text to change important points, things that went well beyond mere corrections. The canonical example is the account of Bilbo's acquisition of the Ring in The Hobbit, but he made other smaller emendations as well. I think it almost certain that if he had lived to publish The Silmarillion he would have changed several things, like Galadriel and the Ban of the Valar. While he was certainly attached to the idea of Elvish blood in Imrahil's line, he also certainly understood that it created philosophical difficulties, and his later account represents at least an experiment toward a more orthodox version, reflected also in the passage from The Silmarillion that I mentioned above. Even in the earlier version of the story, he always cites this as "tradition" or "old tales" or "lore". So here, as elsewhere, there is ample space for him to experiment. The problem, of course, is that he never did make all the final decisions; the ideas were in flux until the day he died; and any serious student of Middle-earth must get used to living with ambiguity. I sometimes wonder (in despair!) if Tolkien didn't leave it this way on purpose -- it brings Middle-earth even closer to the uncertainty we see in real history. Elphion (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dol Amroth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Detail out of all proportion

[edit]

This article has already been tagged for possibly being too insignificant to have its own article, and for treating the subject "in-universe" rather than describing it from a real-world context. Editors agreed some time ago to remove the pointless genealogy (see above), and the conflicting versions of the history are best described in terms of Tolkien's changing ideas. -- Elphion (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dol_Amroth&oldid=1199956405"