Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Umbar

Revision as of 14:49, 11 October 2021 by Akhorahil (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Contents

[edit] Geography

The description of Umbar does not have a reference. The description of Umbar should have The General Map of Middle-earth as a reference for the description and for its Location. http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/6/67/Christopher_Tolkien_-_General_Map_of_Middle-earth.png The speculation about the geographic borders of Umbar should be removed. The speculation about the geographic borders of Umbar does not have a reference in Tolkien's writings. The Webpage by lalaith does no longer exist and when one reads lalaith's page using the internet Archive one sees that lalaith does not back up his speculations with references to Tolkien's writings. --Akhorahil 13:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation and Númenórean Rule

New Haven should be replaced with Vinyalonde with Lond Daer in brackets. Tolkien only uses New Haven once as the translation of the Name into English. The haven was initially namen Vinyalonde and later Lond Daer and Tolkien used those names much more often in his works than New Haven. Many readers will not even know which haven is meant with New Haven, because Tolkien used it only once.

The speculation that Berúthiel was "perhaps from Ubar" should be removed. In an interview in 1966 with New World magazine Tolkien says that Berúthiel "went back to live in the inland city, and went to the bad (or returned to it - she was a black Númenorean in origin, I guess)". The city of Umbar is at the sea at the east of the bay of Umbar and is thus not an "inland city". In this interview Tolkien also mentions the giantess Skadi from scandinavian mythology as his inspiration that married the god of the sea and did not like the seaside life and that she went back to live in Jotunheim (which is not at the sea). I refer to Ellie Keener's excellent article Who is a Númenorean https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jkeener/tolkien/numenorean.html --Akhorahil 13:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Corsairs of Umbar

The speculation that king Telumehtar "destroyed the fortress and haven of the Corsairs" should be removed. This part of the sentence does not have a source in The Lord of the Rings. Also the part of the sentence "but left Umbar unsettled and ruined, aparently with a protective garrison" should be removed. This part of the sentence also does not have a source in The Lord of the Rings. The entry on king Telumehtar in appendix A I (iv) of The Lord of the Rings only mentions that Telumehtar "took Umbar by storm" and that "Umbar was again held for a while by the kings". The entry for the year 1810 in Appendix B of The Lord of the Rings only mentions that king Telumehtar "retakes Umbar and drives out the Corsairs". It is unrealistic from a military point of view to leave a city ruined that one intends to hold after its capture. The part of the sentence seems to be a speculation that is based on the entry on king Telumehtar in The Peoples of Middle-earth Part One chapter VII The Heirs of Elendil The Southern Line: the Anarioni which mentions the "destruction of the haven and stronghold of the Corsairs of Umbar (1810)" and that Umbar "was later reoccupied and rebuilt in the troublous times that later befell Gondor". One should keep in mind that this was an earlier version of the appendix that Tolkien changed later and that was not published like this in the final version of the appendix in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien probably changed this because it was not realistic.

The speculation that "Umbar still fell when enemies invaded Gondor from the east and south in T.A. 1944, preventing Gondor to use it to support its forces from the sea" should be removed. This speculation does not have a source in The Lord of the Rings. The Information in the chapter Cirion and Eorl in Unfinished Tales of Numenor, which was written by Tolkien after the second edition of The Lord of the Rings and which provides more information on the wainrider wars than the appendices to The Lord of the Rings and that does not conflict with the shorter Information in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings indicates that Umbar was lost at a later date. I have explained this in my comments in the entry "The second Gondorian Umbar" in the Forum of the Tolkien Gateway. --Akhorahil 13:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC) [done]

[edit] Haradrim rule

The title of the section should be changed. It is speculative that the Haradrim conquered Umbar and ruled Umbar (whatever is meant with rule). The entry on king Telumehtar in appendix A I (iv) of The Lord of the Rings only mentions that "But in the new evils that soon befell Gondor Umbar was again lost, and fell into the Hands of the Men of the Harad". Harad is simply the Sindarin word for South. We do not know who These Men of the South were. Tolkien does not say anything about their ethnic composition. We only know that king Telumehtar earlier drove out the Corsairs when he took Umbar. From the entry on King Telumehtar in appendix A of the Lord of The Rings we know that in that war the last descendants of Castamir perished. It seems that other Corsairs survived since there were driven out from Umbar and we know that there were gondorians who went with the sons of Castamir to Umbar or that went later to Umbar before the capture of Umbar by Telumehtar. Some Corsairs may even have been Black Númenoreans.

The speculative sentence "Umbar had been reclaimed by the Haradrim, rebuilt and occupied and for the rest of the Third Age" should be removed. The speculative sentence "It became a home for a new generation of 'Corsairs of Umbar', who must have been closely related to the Haradrim, if not even merely Southrons themselves" should be removed. These speculative sentences do not have a source in The Lord of the Rings. These sentences have no refrence on which source they are based. Maybe they are based on Chris Seeman's opinion in his article Rethinking Umbar in the february 2003 issue of The Guild Companion or on lalaith's The Third Realm in Exile. Again the information in the chapter The Heirs of Elendil of the Peoples of Middle-earth is just earlier versions of appendix A that were later changed and were not published in The Lord of the Rings. It should at least be explicitly said that those are just speculation and that Tolkien does not say anything about the ethnic composition of the Corsairs of Umbar in The Lord of the Rings.

I would appreciate if the user Sage could undo bis changes from 7 october 2020. They are largely speculative. There is no evidence that Gondor neglected Umbar, we do not know why and how it was conquered. There is no evidence that Umbar was rebuilt (POME contains drafts that were changed and Tolkien even enlarged the Text on the Kin-strife after the first published edition of LOTR in the second edition and was thus seemingly unser no pressure to save space, so his deletions were probably because he did not want that content anymore). The same applies to the racial mix of the corsairs, all of that is speculative and is not in the published version. I intend to thoroughly rewrite the whole article and supply references and to clearly disclose all speculative sentences through the use of words, such as "probably" or "possibly" and to disclose the reasons in which I base my speculations. Umbar is sort of my most important project and this article is important for me. I have already conducted key Word searches for all publications by J.R.R. Tolkien that are related to Middle-earth including the History of Middle-earth series and how Umbar appeared during the writing process of LOTR and how it changed in various maps. --Akhorahil 13:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you should go forward with this and clean this mess up! Anyone else in agreement?--Tengwar 17:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I will clean up the Umbar page. I have already compiled all references including Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth series as weil as the entry for Umbar in the Unfinished Index. I am sort of an expert on Umbar. --Akhorahil 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok awesome! Your notes about the Black Numenoreans should also be included in its respective page, especially concerning the dwindling of the race.--Tolkienator 14:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

[edit] Politics and rule

The speculative part of the sentence "Umbar allowed their race to swiftly dwindle and merge with the Pré-Númenoreans" should be removed. In the footnote to the entry on king Eärnil I in appendix A I (iv) Tolkien does not speficically talk about the Black Númenoreans who lived in Umbar, he talks about the Black Númenoreans in General as "their race" and Tolkien does not use "and", he uses "or". Tolkien said "their race swiftly dwindled or became merged with the Men of Middle-earth". Tolkien also uses the verb dwindle or wane in connection with the Dúnedain of Arnor and Gondor when he means that their lifespan diminished and that their skills and knowledge diminished. In the chapter The Istari in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth Tolkien mentions that the settlements of the Men of Númenor "beyond Umbar had been absorbed, or being made by men already in Númenor corrupted by Sauron had become hostile and part of Sauron's dominions". Since Tolkien explicitly talks about the settlements "beyond" Umbar in the south this could mean that the Black Númenoreans in Umbar were not absorbed by whatever the other local nearby population was. In addition Tolkien says in The Lord of the Rings that the Mouth of Sauron and says in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth that queen Berúthiel were Black Númenoreans and more authors agree that it is more likely that the Mouth of Sauron was born in the Third Age. I refer to Ellie Keener's excellent article that I mentioned earlier. --Akhorahil 13:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention of Umbar being ruled as a duumvirate. It's also speculative to say that Herumor and Fuinur ruled as a duumvirate in Umbar, although they were associated with the Haradrim--Yeyeye 15:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Language

The user Sage inserted speculative claims in his Revision from 3 November 2010 from 02:29, which are incorrect and which are based on an unreliable source.

The speculative claim that "Nothing is known about the language of Umbar, but no doubt must have been Adûnaic, probably Holding back the Elvish elements which created Westron of the Third Age, resulting perhpaps in a Haradric variety of the language" that uses the article "The Third Realm in Exile" by Andreas Möhn (= lalaith) as a reference, is incorrect. The speculative claim is based on the almost identical speculative claim in the section with the title "3441 SA - 1050 TA: The Ancient Realm" of the article without disclosing to which time period it refers. J.R. Tolkien explicitly said that Westron became the native lanuage "along all the coasts from Umbar northward" in the course of the Third Age and that at the time of the War of the Ring "These were still its bounds as a native tongue" in Appendix F of The Lord of the Rings.

In the article "The Third Realm in Exile" from Andreas Möhn that can be read using the internet Archive in the section "3441 SA - 1050 TA: The Ancient Realm" Andreas Möhn claims that the Black Númenóreans very likely did not Exchange Classical Adûnaic against an Elvish influenced Westron and that they retained it as a language of lore and that it may eventually have grown into a Southron equivalent of the Common Speach. Andreas Möhn Claims that it is noteworthy in this context that Arundel Lowdham cited not one but two Third Age descendants of Classical Adûnaic, giving names for sun and moon, respectively and provides the Notion Club Papers as the reference for this statement. Andreas Möhn further speculates that if one of them was Westron the other may very well have been the Adûnaic Idiom of Umbar. Those claims are incorrect. J.R.R. Tolkien did not say that there are two Third Age descendants of Classical Adunaic in The History of The Lord of the Rings, Part 4 Sauron Defeated, Part Two: The Notion Club Papers. In The History of The Lord of the Rings, Part 4 Sauron Defeated, Part Two: The Notion Club Papers (i) The earlier versions of Night 66 in manuscript E the ghost-languages in which the names for sun and moon are mentioned are Quenya and Sindarin, in the first typescript version F 1 the ghost-language Nūmenorean A is Avallonian (Sindarin) and the ghost-language Nūmenorean B is Adunaic. Arundel Lowdham never cited any names of the sun and the moon in any Third Age descendents of (Classical) Adunaic. This is clear from the context, from the words for sun and moon in Quenya, Sindarin and Adunaic and from the index in Sauron Defeated which also identifies the two ghost-languages.

The article "The Third Realm in Exile" that can be read for free together with other articles in the internet archive of Lalaith's middle-earth sciences page is now a part of the not free of charge book "Middle-earth seen by the Barbarians" by Codex Regius (Andreas Möhn and Metka Clemencic). --Akhorahil 15:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all of Akhorahil's suggestions. I think you should look to this page and do a re-write and once its done, everyone else can edit it.--Tolkienator 13:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I will clean up the article. --Akhorahil 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Article needs breaking into sections. Need more narrative and fewer quotes, if possible. --Theoden1 13:55, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Fate

I can't find a source for tihs, but I remember Tolkien explicitly stating that "Umbar" was a native word, and not connected to Q. "fate". -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lalaith's website gone

With Lalaith's website being gone, this link works no more. --Adûnâi 02:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The second gondorian period

I am currently creating a Middle Earth timeline of my own, and I try to be as precise as possible in regard to dates and geography; however, I'm currently stuck with Umbar's history in the late 2nd millenium. It's hard to find precise sources, and in the writings quoted I can't confirm half of what I find online, so if somebody could help me out with a few issues, that would be great.

In short:

  1. Was Umbar destroyed or merely captured in 1810?
  2. Was only the city or the whole realm conquered?
  3. When did Gondor loose it again?
  4. Was it still in Gondorian possession in 1944?
  5. How was it conquered in the first place?

In long:

Firstly, in the articles on the Corsair Wars and on Umbar, it is stated that Umbardacil destroyed both haven and fortress and that Umbar was completely depopulated thereafter, maybe except a small garrison. How do we know all that? The only source quoted is Appendix A of LotR, but none of this is said there, at least not in my LotR edition. I only read that Telumehtar took Umbar by storm in 1810, and that it was held for a while again by the kings thereafter.

So, is it truly confirmed that Umbar was completely destroyed by Gondor and deserted by the native population? I can't imagine why Gondor would banish those parts of the population that were neither corsairs nor heirs of Castamir. Giving up a flourishing metropolis, its taxes, its fleet, its walls and its potential recruits, would not just be a massacre, but it would also be stupid, especially for a realm in decline like Gondor, so I will only believe that when I see the original source. Does someone know it?

Secondly, did Umbardacil conquer

a) just the city Umbar, or

b) the whole realm of Umbar?

I guess it has to be rather a, or otherwise Appendix A would not say that the conflict was not ended until the time of Elessar, but can we confirm that anywhere? This too is something I will only believe when I read it in the original source, for I would say a is rather unlikely compared to b, namely for two reasons:

First, I never read anywhere that the war was still going on in 1811, and second, I can't imagine how the Gondorians could have failed to conquer the remaining region. After all, it was a time when they had the capital captured and no troubled borders anywhere else, so they could focus all their attention on the region for over 40 years.

However, the Elessar side note seems to require a, yet, as I explained, it is less convincing to me. So, does anyone have a source that confirms/denies that the war was still going on during the reign of Umbardacil?

Thirdly, do we know when exactly (or at least when approximately) Gondor lost Umbar? Apendix A says it was held again by "the kings," ergo at least least two, ergo lost after 1850. The article on Umbardacil shares that belief and says it was held throughout his remaining reign; however, Appendix A gives us a second hint, which is harder to interpret:

Umbar was lost sometime "in the new evils that soon befell Gondor." That's obviously the Wainriders, but does it mean their first invasion in the 1850s, their second invasion in the 1940s, or the tense time in between? Can we narrow the date of Umbar's fall down any further?

Fourthly, I do not completely understand this sentence:

"Umbar still fell when enemies invaded Gondor from the east and south in T.A. 1944, preventing Gondor to use it to support its forces from the sea."

What does "Umbar still fell" mean? A city is fallen when it is being captured and not a day before then. This is no long process, but it "still fell" indicates one.

So, does the sentence instead describe the decline of the Gondorian province Umbar, which was thus recaptured by the Haradrim gradually over decades? If that were true, parts of Umbar and likely the city itself were still in Gondorian possession at the time of Earnil, and that would clearly contradict the statement on the Umbardacil page, saying it was lost "shortly after Umbardacil's death."

Besides, can we confirm the sentence anywhere? Again, I don't find this information in the sources quoted. In the 14th footnote of "Cirion and Eorl and the Friendship of Gondor and Rohan," I merely read that the Haradrim did not get reinforcements from Umbar. The reason is not stated. It doesn't speak about a Gondorian Umbar or potential Gondorian reinforcements. So, again, does anyone know a source that confirms/denies that Umbar was in Gondorian possession in 1944?

Finally, just by curiosity, do we know whether the Gondorian army attacked by sea or by land in 1810? Unsigned comment by Faenor (talk • contribs).

It seems like an interesting research and your points are valid. I can't help, but if you find claims that aren't backed by their citations, remember to add the {{fact}} template. Sage 07:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I do not recommend to rely on information from the Tolkien Gateway without having verified whether it is supported by works written by J.R.R. Tolkien. Often sentences in the Tolkien Gateway do not contain a footnote that identifies a source for the information in those sentences. I recommend to only rely on the works written by J. R. R. Tolkien. For your questions I recommend to read the appendices to The Lord of the Rings and to read Cirion and Eorl and the Frienship of Gondor and Rohan in Uninished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth.
1. This seems to have been derived from the entry 28. for King Telumehtar in The Heirs of Elendil - The Southern Line of Gondor: the Anarioni in Chapter VII The Heirs of Elendil of The Peoples of Middle-earth, which mentions parts of the content of various older versions of the appendices of The Lord of the Rings. It contains "He took the title Umbardakil after the storming and destruction of the haven and stronghold of the Corsairs of Umbar (1810). But this was later reoccupied and rebuilt in the troublous times that later befell Gondor.". I agree with you that destroying the city would be a waste of resources. This is probably the reason why Tolkien changed his mind and does not longer mention the destruction and rebuilding of the city of Umbar in appendix A to the The Lord of the Rings, but only mentions that he "took Umbar by storm" and even mentions that "Umbar was again held for a while by the kings", which indicates that it was not destroyed, because if you intend to hold a city you keep its walls and buildings and you repair any damage that you caused during the storming of the city.
2. After the storming of Umbar in 1810, Gondor had 30 years until it perceived danger by the wainriders in 1940 when it took counsel with the North Kingdom and it took another 4 years until 1944 until the battle at Dagorlad in the north and the battle against the Haradrim at the Poros in Ithilien. In my opinion it would make sense to also conquer the realm of Umbar to secure the city and to secure the city's supply of food. In my opinion b) is more likely.
3., 4. and 5 I have read those sources and I have also read the chapters about the history of the appendices in The Peoples of Middle-earth. Keep in mind that Tolkien changed the content of his drafts of the appendices so that he probably abandoned some ideas and decided not to publish them in this form and that he expanded the appendices as far as the Kin-strife is concerned in the second edition of The Lord of the Rings. I can tell you that there are no direct answers to your questions in the sources written by J. R. R. Tolkien. Based on the information in the sources, you will have to make your own assumptions about the most likely timeframe when Umbar was lost again and about the circumstances of its capture by enemies.
The passage about King Telumehtar in the appendix A I (iv) of The Lord of the Rings says "But Telumehtar his son, remembering the death of Minardil, and being troubled by the insolence of the Corsairs, who raided his coasts even as far as the Anfalas, gathered his forces and in 1810 took Umbar by storm. In that war the last descendants of Castamir perished, and Umbar was again held for a while by the kings. But in the new evils that soon befell Gondor Umbar was again lost, and fell into the hands of the Men of the Harad.". The passage about King Valacar before says "Umbar remained at war with Gondor for many lives of men, a threat to its coastlands and to all traffic on the sea. It was never again completely subdued until the days of Elessar; and the region of South Gondor became a debatable land between the Corsairs and the Kings.".
From the use of the plural in "by the kings", we can derive that Umbar must have been held at least by King Telumehtar and his successor Narmacil II, so at least until after the death of King Telumehtar in 1850. From the use of "by the kings" and the absence of the addition of "and by the stewards", we can derive that Umbar could have been held at at maximum until 2050, the year of the disappearance of the last king of Gondor, Eärnur, in Minas Morgul. From the use of "for a while" and "soon" in annals of the Third Age which lasted for over 3000 years and form the lifespan of the kings of Gondor, which were longer than the lifespan of normal men unless they died prematurely in battle, we can derive that Umbar could only have been held by Gondor for a couple of hundred years. From the fact that Umbar was lost "in the new evils that soon befell Gondor", we can derive it must have been at a time of an "evil" that befell Gondor itself and not just an evil that befell Arthedain where Gondor just sent troops to aid Arthedain. Tolkien uses the word "evil" in several instances in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings. The passage about Valacar in the appendix A I (iv) of The Lord of the Rings mentions "the days of Valacar that the first great evil came upon Gondor". The passage about King Telemnar in the appendix A I (iv) of The Lord of the Rings mentions that "The second and greatest evil came upon Gondor in the reign of Telemnar". The passage about King Narmacil II The in the appendix A I (iv) of The Lord of the Rings mentions "The third evil was the invasion of the Wainriders, which sapped the waning strength of Gondor in wars that lasted for almost a hundred years". This passage is the first mentioning on an "evil" that befell Gondor after the reign of King Telumehtar Umbardacil. Since this "evil" involved wars that lasted for almost a hundred years, it can also be perceived als "evils" (i.e. plural). Although Tolkien later does not explicitly call the three year long siege of Minas Ithil from 2000 until 2003 and the capture of Minas Ithil and its palantír by the Ringwraiths an "evil", it is certainly something evil that befell Gondor itself since Minas Ithil was one of the most important cities or fortresses of Gondor and located in Gondor itself. It is notable that Gondor did not have sufficient military power to break the siege with troops from the rest of Gondor for three long years even with other troops inside Minas Ithil defending the city. I do not agree with Chris Seeman's date of 1940 in his article Rethinking Umbar in the february 2003 issue of The Guild Companion and I do not agree with the date 1940 for the loss of Umbar in section 3.11.2 on page 26 of Iron Crown Enterprises (ICE)'s Middle-Earth Role Playing (MERP) Southern Gondor - The People that was published in 1996. Chris Seeman seems to base his date of 1940 primarily on information in The Lord of the Rings Appendix A I (iv) that the kingdom of Arthedain and the kingdom of Gondor perceived that some single power and will was directing the assault from "many" quarters upon to survivors of Númenor and that "that time" was in 1940. Chris Seeman seems to think that "many" quarters means more than two "quarters". This seems to be contradicted by the entry for the year 1940 of the Third Age in chapter VIII The Tale of Years of the Third Age in The Peoples of Middle-earth. The entry for the year 1940 says "Messengers pass between the two kingoms, since both are in peril: the South from the Wainriders of the East, and the North from renewed attacks from Angmar.". It is quite possible that the assault from "many" quarters means just those two quarters and not an assault on Umbar that was not mentioned by Tolkien. Cirion and Eorl and the Friendship of Gondor and Rohan in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth contains more detailed Information on the wars with the wainriders than the appendices to The Lord of The Rings. It mentions that Calimehtar, the son of King Narmacil II, determined to avenge the defeat of the Battle of the Plains "being free from other dangers". The footnote to this "being free from other dangers" says that "His grandfather Telumehtar had captured Umbar and broken the power of the Corsairs, and the peoples of Harad were at this period engaged in wars and feuds of their own". In my opinion, this "being free from other dangers" is an indication that Umbar was still held by Gondor at this point in time during the rule of King Calimehtar so that there was no danger from Umbar. Tolkien mentions in Cirion and Eorl and the Friendship of Gondor and Rohan in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth that "Calimehtar withdrew to Gondor, which enjoyed for a time (from 1899 to 1944) a respite from war." If there was a respite from war in Gondor from 1899 to 1944, it is unlikely that Umbar was lost in 1940, because that would mean an attack and therefore war on one of the largest and most important cities held by Gondor. Tolkien mentions that King Ondoher's southern army was smaller, because "the danger from that quarter" (i.e. from the south) "was held to be less". Tolkien's footnote to that statement says "Justly. For an attack proceeding from Near Harad - unless it had assistance from Umbar, which was not at that time available - could more easily resisted and contained." This is an indication that Umbar was still held by Gondor or by someone who was not willing or able to aid the army from Harad that attacked Ithilien in 1944. In my opinion there are strong indications that Umbar was not lost in 1940 and not in 1944 when King Ondoher divided his army and died in the northern battle. The first time that an attack by the Corsairs (of Umbar) is mentioned again in the appendices is during the ruling stewardship of the Ruling Steward Cirion, where Tolkien mentions that "The Corsairs harried his coasts". Cirion's father Boromir died in 2489. So the first mentioning of an attack by the Corsairs (of Umbar) after the capture of Umbar by Telumehtar Umbardacil in 1810 is in the year 2489 or later.
A first possibility is that the Haradrim or Corsairs that had flown from the City of Umbar during its conquest by Telumehtar Umbardacil in 1810 or that lived outside of the city of Umbar in the realm of Umbar, in South Gondor (Harondor) or in the region south of the river Harnen as the people living the closest to Umbar, conquered Umbar after 1944, if the Haradrim had again enough troops after their defeat at the Poros or because those gondorian Corsairs made a mutual non-attack deal with the invading Haradrim and were able to do so because Gondor had lost a lot of troops in the war with the wainriders and in the battle with the Haradrim before. The fact that after the battle against the Haradrim at the river Poros in 1944 king Eärnil waited until he felt himself "sufficiently secure" does not seem to indicate that he would send an "army of power", "small sending force of the whole might of Gondor" for "a war of Great kings", especially with "so many were his ships that they could scarcely find harbourage, though both the Harlond and also the Forlond also were filled" if he perceived that Umbar was threatened to be conquered by enemies or if he perceived that Umbar might raid Gondor with ships if Umbar was already conquered by enemies at this time.
A second possibility is that the Haradrim conquered Umbar in or after 1975 when Eärnur took troops from Gondor in ships to fight the Witch king in the North (i.e. in Arthedain and Angmar), because he probably also took troops from Umbar and therefore weakened its ability to defend itself. However the Gondorians won that war and left their ships in the harbour of Lindon so the Gondorians must have had at least some troops left and had a large undamaged fleet.
A third possibility is between 2000 and 2002 or afterwards, because the Nazgul besieged Minas Ithil from 2000 until 2002 and Gondor was never able to retake Minas Ithil until the reign of King Elessar (Aragorn II). If Gondor was not able to defeat the besieging mordorian troops during a two year long siege it was either too busy there to defend or retake Umbar or no longer militarily able to defend or to retake Umbar. --Akhorahil 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the detailed answers! Faenor 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Context

Hey User:Akhorahil, I noticed some information in the article that doesn't refer to Umbar and should be repeated or moved elsewhere. For example Hyarmendacil had a victory against the Men of Harad, but we arent told that these were Corsairs, or that the victory happened at Umbar. At some other poin says that the Corsair killed a King in Pelargir. Pelargir isn't Umbar, and whatever the Corsairs did outside Umbar, belongs to their own history and article. We can't include any information that concerns the Haradrim, the Corsairs or Pelargir in this article. I would like to clean them up but I saw you are working again on this article, so I'd like your opinion. Sage 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that it is feasible to cleary distinguish between the history of what happened related to a geographic region or realm from the history of the various races or peoples of that geographic region or realm. I also think it is not feasible to clearly distinguish between what is happening in the region itself or what is happening in another neighbouring region (i.e. Harad or Gondor as neighbours) if people from the first region are involved. I think there will always be a large overlap between for example the history of Harad and the history of the Haradrim or between the history of Umbar and the history of the Corsairs of Umbar or the history of the Black Númenoreans. Following your idea the landing of Gondorian troops under the command of prince Eärnur in Lindon and the battle of this Gondorian army against the Witch king in Arthededain would not be part of the history on the Gondor page, but only part of the history on the Lindon page and Arthedain page. Hyarmendacil I (Ciryaher) had a victory against the (Black Núnmenorean) lords that led the Men of Harad that were besieging Umbar, so that was related to Umbar. One could argue that we do not know where Hyarmendacil II (Vinyarion) defeated the Haradrim. It could have been in Near Harad or it could have been in an area that was part of the realm of Umbar. His father Aldamir was killed in a war with the Harad and Corsairs of Umbar, so the defeat of the Men of the Harad by Hyamendacil II may also have been on the territory of their allies from Umbar. I could add some speculation (such as "It is possible that this war also took place in the realm of Umbar.") in the paragraph about king Hyarmendacil II to show a possible relationship to the history of Umbar and the history of the Corsairs of Umbar or could delete any reference to Hyarmendacil II in the history of Umbar and the history of the Corsairs of Umbar. Personally, I think that the forces of Hyarmendacil II (Vinyarion) also fought against Men of the Harad in the realm of Umbar, but that is just my personal speculation. --Akhorahil 14:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)