Corsairs of Umbar

One theory regarding the timing of the “Viking Age” and later notoriety of the Vikings is that their expansion exploited the weakness of their neighbors. England was divided and was several centuries away from becoming a major power. Nor was there any other power with any real naval capabilities. The medieval tendency to build towns and villages near coastline and navigable rivers meant that for a seafaring group, there were plenty of targets. In this atmosphere, trade, immigration and raiding was much easier for an up and coming power.   It also mirrors the conditions the Corsairs operated in just before the War of the Ring. After all, the Corsairs were literally the Gondorian Navy, which was never able to rebuild after their defection. The Atlas of Middle Earth and real world history demonstrates that most potential targets would be where Corsairs can strike. Add in the range of the Longships and most of Middle Earth’s coastline is at risk.   Macauley Richardson, Lloyd. "Books: Eurasian Exploration". Policy Review. Hoover Institution. Archived from the original on 2009-12-16.   Now, who were these corsairs? Well, the real life Barbary Corsairs included Jews who fled Spain during the Inquisition. They used piracy under the Ottoman Empire as a profitable means of revenge. The desire for money was a huge motivating factor as well. A captain in the British Navy in the 1800s was paid about $1,101.62. Crew on a successful pirate ship could expect at least one share equal to $1.17million. As a result, it is estimated that between 1793 and 1803, 42,000 sailors deserted. It is also possible that like the Barbary Corsairs, the ones from Umbar would make use of destitute immigrants from other areas.   "Treasure". Retrieved April 21, 2009.   We could therefore expect the Corsairs to be getting decent tribute from coastal villages and minor nobility. At the same time, raids would be also used to punish those who didn’t pay up. Entire villages would probably be burned, men executed and women and children sold into slavery. Anything to serve as collective punishments and to terrorize other people into making payments. This would be more likely to be the source of most of the regular income. Meanwhile, the loot pillaged would probably come from coastlines of Gondor.   It must be noted that regular tribute would be more beneficial that raiding for every little scrap. Granted, a society like the Corsairs and the Vikings I suspect they would operate like would value violence for its own sake. So, raiding would persist out of a cultural need for people to prove themselves. Yet this would be limited by the economic reality that too much raiding would actually reduce their material wealth by destroying their economic base. Therefore, I suspect the raids and the targets chosen would be based on punishment of those who failed to pay tribute properly or to overcome a slave shortage. As the brutality of slavery means that there will always be a shortage of slaves, this provides a middle ground that balances the cultural need for war and the need to preserve their economics.   One interesting note is that these raids paved the way for settlements that proved to be historically significant. Many trading posts were set up in areas that were raided extensively by Vikings. Dublin for example grew out of one such settlement. Through this settlement and the unification of many of these groups led to viking control over much of the British Isles. The Normans – of Norman Conquest fame – got their name from being “northmen” AKA vikings that settled in what is now Normandy.   Griffith (1995), Chapter 4 The Viking Notion of Strategy   Robert Wernick. The Vikings. Alexandria VA: Time-Life Books. 1979. p. 285   Fedrigo, Anna; Grazzi, Francesco; Williams, Alan R.; Panzner, Tobias; Lefmann, Kim; Lindelof, Poul Erik; Jørgensen, Lars; Pentz, Peter; Scherillo, Antonella (2017-04-01). "Extraction of archaeological information from metallic artefacts—A neutron diffraction study on Viking swords". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 12: 425–36. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.02.014.   Most obvious in foreign policy issues is the fact that the Corsairs would rely on a massive retaliation approach. When tribute and slaves are such costly phenomenon to the victims and not consensual for one side, one needs to make obedience much less costly than resistance. Mobilization must mean war mobilizing must come quick. The longer slaves and tribute payers go, the more others will be emboldened. Similarly, Corsairs are not well set up to handle real resistance to their raids. Thus, the strike needs to be as swift and sudden as possible. Surprise is just as important as the suffering they inflict.This to me also means a first strike and counter value posture. They cannot wait until the enemy forces are concentrated. The logic of making defiance costly demands the sort of attacks on civilians and economics. Not to mention if you are trying to avoid concentrations of enemy force, counter value becomes the only option. It also means brinkmanship over diplomacy - they would probably prefer to park one of their great ships in site of the area in question and hope the show of force would cause a surrender.   As a result of this, scorched earth and commerce raiding would be the main war fighting models they would use. The enemy needs to be wiped out totally. They cannot be allowed to recover and threaten the Corsairs. Especially damaging would be a victim able to become a symbol of hope for others who might be interested in resistance. On top of the looting, slavery and burning of villages, I would expect the enemy soldiers and rebels to be publicly executed in the most gruesome ways.   They would likely prioritize economic aggrandizement via loot as their main secondary objective. In fact, their massive retaliation is likely to come in the form of stealing all valuables and selling people into slavery. Meanwhile, they are unlikely to have much of an ideology to motivate them. External stability or too much economic growth of other powers would lead to them becoming threats that would threaten their territorial defense and survival.   The habit of obedience would be preferred. Most slave societies and plunderers rely on obedience more so than actually unleashing a constant stream of harsh punishments. The harsh punishments and thus the means of coercion would be how the habit of obedience is generated. Mobilizations against enemies and excessive beatings would actually undermine the productivity and thus utility of the slaves and tribute payers. Thus, so long as they keep working and paying, no violence is needed. Thus, habit and coercion would be mixed.   The Haradrim and Gondor would be a threat to the Corsairs due to the slave raiding. Any nation whose economic vitality comes from slave raiding can justifiably be seen as a security threat to the societies targeted by the raids. Hence the fact that Gondor and the Southrons being the main enemies.   In terms of the military powers, the major threats are Gondor and Mordor. Mordor has vastly superior numbers for its land forces. But Gondor has better trained land forces than the Corsairs. Both have more centralized command structures. As naval power would not be a major factor in an all out war between the Corsairs and either of these powers, it seems unlikely that they would win should a concerted effort be made to eliminate them. This means that a mix of deterrence, counter value, massive retaliation and second strike postures would be the only thing to stop an attack.   But again, they are limited by their naval focus. Gondor is the only power they can genuinely apply this posture to with any hope of it working. Mordor has not exposed coasts or rivers to grant the Corsairs access for their ships. Plus, Mordor would be perfectly willing to pay whatever costs the Corsairs would be able to impose.   But this goes even further. Mordor could really use those ships in the invasion of Gondor. Thus, Mordor would be justified in offering concessions in exchange for an alliance. Meanwhile, Gondor is the state with the historical precedents, apparent motives and opportunities to attack. The territorial security of Gondor is threatened by them and thus one of their major vulnerabilities would be eliminated.   Gondor is a regional, long range, high intensity, expanding, national, lethal, traditional threat. The Southrons would be a regional, short range, low intensity threat that is remaining steady. A truce will likely be there during the War of the Ring. But it would be unlikely to last after. The Southrons would likely be an unconventional but lethal threat. Both are military threats.   Both would be political and economic if they exploit slave resistance as a tool to subvert the Corsair leadership. These slave revolts would prove to be national, short term and high intensity threats. Over the long term, they would probably be remaining steady but fluctuate in terms of how big of a threat they are based on specific conditions and external aid to them. They are normally seen as sub national threats but could in the right contexts elevate to national. They are both lethal and unconventional political/economic threats.   As both of these threats are relatively weak and apparently unable to pose a long term threat to Umbar, the status quo seems to benefit the Corsairs. The destruction of Gondor would cost them their main source of tribute. Both Gondor and the Southrons would provide slaves. The War of the Ring would eliminate Gondor as a source of both loot and slaves. Their only other source of slaves would be the Southrons, who would be converted into allied soldiers. Thus, they would benefit from things staying as they are.   But, there are two things that complicate this picture. One would be the raid on Umbar that Aragorn successfully pulls off. This would signal that Gondor is stronger and more willing to act. Hence a motive for the massive retaliation I suspect that the Corsairs would utilize. For no other reason, that raid would signal that Gondor is stronger and more willing to defend itself that it was before. Thus balance of threat calculations would motivate them to act.   The second would be their alliance with Mordor. Mordor is the clear land power in the area and the Corsairs are primarily a sea power. This means they would be weak against Mordor's attacks. But their base - unlike real life naval powers like England - does not have major bodies of water that would protect them from land attacks. A bandwagon approach makes political sense.   This also makes sense politically when one looks at the fact that Gondor is the other major land power that can attack them. The major difference between Mordor and Gondor from the perspective of Umbar is their relative threats. Gondor clearly considers the Corsairs a threat and the only thing stopping its military from wiping them out is it is too weak to do so. Once it is willing and able, such tolerance of Umbar will disappear. Meanwhile, Mordor is led by what the Corsairs see as a god. If one power is offering an alliance - an admittedly unequal one - and the other is an existential threat, the choice is clear.