: I'm rather looking forward to the response.

I'm just a fool for these kinds of threads. :-)

I'll do some chopping of text here, principally because it's become quite long, and I'd rather focus on the disputed points.

[...]

REGARDING FEUDAL POLITICAL RELATIONSHIPS:

: : What's less clear, however, is the system of services all this entailed. A number of minor lords - Lossarnach, etc. - are mentioned, and it's fairly clear that each seems to be responsible for producing a set number of men at arms at need. Whether they serve in a system of hierarchical vassalage - i.e., that a minor lord would owe his service and that of his men first to, say, Angbor of Lamedon before the King/Steward, is unclear. The major lords mentioned, however, do seem to have had some discretion as to how many troops they might contribute to the central army. Also unclear is the exact nature of the relationship between knights or other men at arms and the lords. Did they receive land for their service? Or cash payment? We simply don't know.

: If some level of authority over all the people of a fief is not invested in the greater lord it leaves him flapping in the wind somewhat. I think the likelihood of the provincial lords merely being hereditary war leaders, for example, and having no civil function or gaining no financial (or payment in kind) benefit from their folk is low - it would give them no grip on their people and nothing to ensure their loyalty. So I think that the loyalty of the provincials would be first to their immediate lord and then to the state. If the two interests clashed then loyalty would be divided. This is admittedly extrapolation but the alternative political systems seem to fit less well with what little information we are given.

1. Your point would carry a great deal of validity if we were talking about any typical human society or polity. The Numeoreans were unique, however, in the unusually high (though some political scientists might call it just the opposite) level of development of their political culture. There was absolutely no question of legitimacy or power of the Elendilian dynasty or that of its Stewards. The one exception proves the point: the Civil War of the 1400's developed because two branches of the Royal dynasty had appeared when Castamir seized the throne. What's more, this high level of respect and deference extended not just to the royal line, but throughout all of Numenorean society, even in its late decay, given that those of purer Numenorean extraction really were different - bluntly, genetically superior. Absent this high level of deference, it's likely that the Gondorian state would have dissolved after the end of the line of Anarion, if not before - not unlike the Holy Roman Empire after the death of Charlemagne.

I don't doubt that lords like Angbor were vested with some measure of political authority. Their power, however, seems to have derived not from force of arms or material payments, but from their legitimacy derived from their lineage. There may well have BEEN such payments/rents/services, but they weren't the real source of their power. Angbor would be deferred to because he came from a long line of Lords of Lamedon, a respect only exceeded by some greater Numeroean House or line - such as the Kings or the Stewards. And these leaders seem to have EARNED such respect, by virtue of the greater leadership abilities that their genetics allowed. Conflicts of allegiance only occured once, during the Civil War, and when it occured it was a conflict between supporters of two rival royal lines, not a revolt of nobles, a la Montfort.

FEUDAL OR SEMI-FEUDAL?

: : So far so good. But all this proves is that Gondor had a political system based on hereditary nobility - which is not quite the same thing as feudalism. It is, however, a necessary component. Especially when at least a limited degree of vassalage involving military service appears to be involved. We may conclude that Gondor appears to have been at least semi-feudal in its political structure - or at least, that it exhbits certain feudal traits. In contrast to a medieval king, however, the Stewards seem to have retained a great deal of centralized, if not quite absolute, authority. I would call it a centralized feudal (or semi-feudal) polity.

: I would not argue that Gondor had a purely feudal political system. My own view would be that it somewhat resembles that of the Later Byzantine state say at the time of the Comnenids, or perhaps England under Cnut.

That may well be an apt analogy. Of course, the important distinction is that the Gondorian state never had the problems of succession or legitimacy that the Byzantine dynasts encountered.

Of course, You've likely just set off Michael's alarm bells by making another medieval analogy.

: I cannot really think of a state which displayed a pure form of feudalism. England in the 12thC had Sheriffs who had some of the functions of provincial governors for the crown, it also had a non - heritable Chancellorship, a relatively stable well-used currency, and the crown had the ability to raise direct taxes.

I can think of a few. France before Phillip Augustus, the Holy Roman Empire for much of its history, or medieval Poland - all had titular monarchs but virtually all power rested in the hands of the nobles. And you could make an argument for pre-Shogunate Japan. Naturally, it didn't make for much political stability in any of these instances.

NUMENOREANS AS TRADERS?

Even the Numenoreans do not come across as great traders - they came to M. Earth as asset strippers (Lond Daer woodchopping) and later as overlords but seem to have been far too lordly to haggle!

: : Actually, they first came in a benign fashion, teaching the Men of the coasts new skills. It was only when they began establishing havens that resource exploitation began in earnest.

: Admitted - though teachers but not apparently traders to any great extent.

Well, we don't know. Tolkien doesn't discuss trade very much. However, it's difficult to think of a great maritime state that isn't a great trading state as well - in fact, I can't think of one at all. I think that the Numenoreans had to do a fair amount of trading, before and after exile, particularly for raw materials they lacked. Whether they had an aptitude for it, or simply did it out of necessity, we can only speculate. Tolkien seems not to have been fond of dirtying his tales with the mechanics of commerce.

[...]

: : A lack of extrernal trade, however, is not always consonant with feudalism. It was certainly true of Western Europe and Japan; however, it was also true of many primitive societies, as well as at least one advanced one in China, at least during several periods in its history. Given the lack of evidence, we can only speculate about the precide economic structure of Gondor at the end of the Third Age. It's likely that, indeed, trade had seriously declined, that urban vitality had significantly diminished, and that there was likely a strengthening to some degree of certain client-vassal relationships in late Gondorian society. The best medieval parallel, in this sense, would be Byzantium, not post-Roman Western Europe, for Byzantium retained a class of small landed farmers well into the Middle Ages. There's no evidence of a class of peasantry in Gondor, and I tend to believe that peasantry was contrary to the Numenorean character, even in it's diluted state.

: Even Gondor (or Numenor ere the fall) must have had hewers of wood and tillers of fields.

Surely.

: I agree that it seems unlikely that any Numenorean kingdom (except the Sauron influenced one!) had a class of serfs tied to land they did not have any stake in. However, you can have a free peasantry, or even a society where the lowest class was a type of yeoman-farmer.

I wouldn't rule out the likelihood that Gondor did possess yoman-farmers, particularly in regions of lesser blood (like the Langstrand), but I think that those of purer Numenorean stock would have been rather exceptional yeoman-farmers.

: The lack of a servile population would not prevent feudal relationships being established between grades of free people. Even in England the yeoman owning his own land might have owed dues to a lord.

Quite true. Again, though, I think that exceptional nature of Numenorean culture makes it difficult to draw too many conclusions along these lines. They may have owed dues or services, but these would not have been the primary causes of allegiance - though it may have been increasingly so as Gondor decayed.

: : Based on the meager evidence available, it seems impossible to definitively characterize Gondorian society as economically feudal - or even to extrapolate such a conclusion. I suspect that Gondor, in its deterioration, was beginning to develop increasingly feudal economic characteristics as trade declined - just as Rome, one of Tolkien's models for Gondor, did in its last stages. But that's just speculation. We just don't know.

: There is precious little in Tolkien of a reasoned economic kind. He was obviously little interested in making his created societies appear economically feasible ones. For example I've argued that large populations of orcs living "free" would be unfeasible given their apparent lack of agricultural abilities, making orc cities like Gundabad unlikely.

Perhaps the hunting up there was very, very good...

Otheriwse, they may have taken tribute from surrounding populations. But that's just speculation.

: The lack of economic pointers makes any assertion of a definitive kind impossible.

I think we're agreed there.

: : In regards to your discussion of Tolkien's choice of nomenclature, I think you may overstate the case. It's dangerous to read too much into Tolkien's choice of words, especially with what we know if his later regrets regarding some of it. Not that it can be entirely ignored; there's a good deal of it, after all. However, given the absence of a landless peasantry and the centralized (albeit weakening) nature of the Gondorian political system, I'd be reluctant to characterize Gondor as anything worse than semi-feudal.

: The use of words which appear on the page has an unavoidable impact on the impression a reader takes away with him. Read the word knight and a thundering vision of a metal-clad man on a large horse unavoidably springs to mind - plus unconscious associations of Ivanhoe and Robin Hood etc. Tolkien must have known this when he made such choices. As in his use of Anglo-Saxon for Rohanish speech, a mere internal assertion of linguistic derivation or parallelism cannot take away the effect and associations that seeing A/S on the page gives the reader.

True. But sometimes such choices were compromises for the sake of wider readership. And sometimes Tolkien regretted such choices, as in his adoption of the terms Elf and Dwarf.

In regards to "knight," Tolkien may well have wished to imply the image of a thundering vision of a metal-clad man on a large horse, but not necessarily all the trappings of the feudal system that often supported such a warrior. "Cataphract" and "lancer" could be used, but they have more specific connotations that Tolkien may have wished to avoid. And he may simply have liked the sound of "knight" better.

: : My conclusion: Politically, Gondor appears to have possessed a rather centralized feudalism; economically, there's no evidence of key aspects of feudalism.

: I would largely agree with your statement here.

I do think that there is too much fedual nomenclature in LOTR to completely dismiss it. The absence of any detailed discussion of Gondorian society, however, makes it dangerous to read too much into them.

One wishes that one had a time machine to go back and tie the poor professor up until he gave us a lengthy treatise on the economic structure of Middle Earth (not to mention a completed Silmarillion), but I know that's selfish. :-)

: Thanks for a good discussion.

Happy to oblige.

R.M. Lender