Thread:Patrick.vtap/@comment-27097330-20160904202547/@comment-26347028-20160905142853

The Lord of Minas Morgul wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: The Lord of Minas Morgul wrote: There's enough lore to state that it wasn't strong, though. They would most likely have an influence on certain coastal points of Harad, and they could be a looming threat to the coast of Gondor, but if Gondor were to launch a real invasion on Umbar, Umbar wouldn't last against them. If it weren't for Mordor being right on their doorstep, the Easterlings not far behind, and the fact that the Haradrim hated Gondor at the time, I think Gondor would have made an attempt to reclaim Umbar when Aragorn went down there to destroy their ships and kill their captain, if not before. I truly think they didn't try reclaiming it at because they felt it would be a waste of time and resources to do it. Quite frankly, with the new alliances with the Haradrim and the Easterlings, and the destruction of Mordor, I don't see why they wouldn't reclaim Umbar, the only other enemy of Gondor not stated to have befriended them after the war), seeing as nothing was stopping them from doing so.

Of course, if we were to negotiate something for the sake of fairness, those territories stretching along the coast would be very helpful Umbar stay alive long enough to fend off Gondor, but by no means could they crush Gondor alone, nor could they completely devastate Gondor's fleets. And by no means would Umbar be an empire, except during its early days when Black Númenóreans were its main inhabitants (not after they were mostly slaughtered and replaced by Haradrim over time). When King Earnil captured Umbar during the third age it took a surprise attack, a long siege by land and sea, and was considered at "great cost." And this was when Gondor was more powerful, had a better navy, and weren't just recovering from a full on war with Mordor. Doesn't sound like they were too weak to me. Even after Gondorian occupation the Umbarians managed to contest Gondorian rule over Harondor, and were deemed a significant threat. Also Mordor wasn't a threat until near the end of the third age, and they had the Rohirrim to use as an ally and shield against the Easterlings. Also they actually did attempt several invasions on Umbar, so that point doesn't stand either.

Yes, the Umbarans couldn't single handed ot crush Gondor, but that's a far cry fro mother beign a ruined pirate's haven. And I see nothing against them having colonies around Harad. And yet Aragorn's sneak attack probably secured Gondor's victory in the war. If not for destroying a good portion of their fleet, Gondor's coast would have been taken much quicker, and they probably would have gone to Osgiliath much sooner. Certainly long before Aragorn would've had any chance of gathering the armies of the dead to kill the men on the ships, as they did.

Yes, Umbar was considerably strong before TA 2980, and even during the WOTR they were able to send 50 great ships and even more smaller vessels, but I doubt that number was as insignificant as many of you would think it to be. After Aragorn came along with his army of ghosts and killed all of the corsairs (and getting some shiny new ships for his new kingdom as a bonus), I can imagine Umbar as weakened enough that they wouldn't be able to withstand Gondor (who now has up to fifty extra large ships plus a bunch of smaller ships, all because they tried invading), not to mention the possibility of Harad helping Gondor take Umbar by land. Also, on the former paragraph, had Rohan not come the war would've been lost. Had Dol Amroth not helped the war could've been lost. Had Frodo not helped the war would've been lost. Now, remind me, how do Aragorn's actions trump all of these.