: But I do have a few comments to respond to.

: : : REGARDING FEUDAL POLITICAL RELATIONSHIPS:

: [...]

: : : 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.

: : Any deference due to lineage must have some basis in power, at least for the ancestors from which the distinction is derived. Given that the basics of Gondorian society don't seem to have changed very much what gave an ancestor power and influence probably extended to the descendant. The case of Imrahil could be instructive. Following the death of Denethor and the incapacity of Faramir Imrahil became de-facto and probably de-jure ruler of Gondor. That he did so is probably, as you say,
: based on his lineage and family connections with the Stewards. However, that he did so with apparent ease and efficiency is a pointer to him having prior experience i.e. he had many years behind him of RULING his principality.

: Your statement that "Any deference due to lineage must have some basis in power, at least for the ancestors from which the distinction is derived" is certainly true regarding any discussion of human relations. The only difficulty, again, is the exceptional nature of the Numenoreans, and the basis of power, while still present, did not need to be so great. The old saying that "blood tells" had the virtue of being more nearly true with them, especially for those of the line of Luthien.

: To take your specific example of Imrahil, he did indeed become lord of Gondor until the arrival of Aragorn, and command passed to him by all avenues: legally, he seems to have been next in line; that doubtless also flowed from his great lineage, second only to the Stewards; politically, because he remained the greatest magnate in the realm; and due to his own force of personality and talent for leadership, which he possessed from blood augmented (as you observe) from experience. And so it was with the Numenoreans, even in their decline. In them, Tolkien created a race of Men in whom there was a real distinction from lesser Men - so unlike most nobility of our own world.

: It was an attitude and a system that surely limited social mobility but simultaneously ensured stability and relative contentment. And it provided a basis for class structure with needing all the trappings of what we recognize as feudalism. It's a unique situation made possible by the existence of a superior race of Men, and, may I say, a more active exercise of divine will in the affairs of Men. In this respect, then, I regard Gondor as posessed of some feudal elements and trappings without really being fully feudal.

To use an old, Gamgee-esqe, saying "Fair is as fair does" or it is of no consequence to have some sort of inbuilt superiority if it is not articulated in any way. Merely to have natural authority or ability does not give an elite any advantages if these qualities are not used by having the elite in positions of power. I think a feudal or feudal-like system might fit very well in a situation where a certain proportion of a population has an edge over the rest. Indeed the development of one out of the other might be looked for.

:
: : : FEUDAL OR SEMI-FEUDAL?

: [...]

: : : : 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.

: : No this is true, but a parallel can be drawn in that Byzantium had by this time a semi-feudal elite (pronoiars) in the provinces, whilst retaining a fairly effective beaurocracy, a small central professional army, and fairly tight central control based on the emperor and his immediate family.

: Good point.

: My only point was that the Numenoreans never (with two exceptions, the Kin-strife, and the breakup of Arnor among Earendur's sons) had difficulty with the one great weakness of the Byzantine state, the instability of succession on the throne, at the apex of this pyramid. For every Justinian I they had...a Justinian II. Fortunately, the Buzantines never had to face Ringwraiths or armies of orcs. :-)

Yes, any general with enough repute and following could aspire to the Byzantine throne. Michael Palaeologus and John Cantacuzenus proved that this point remained valid even at a late date.

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

: : I've passed the Byzantine parallel in front of him before - I wouldn't say red rag but.....

: It probably doesn't quite get his blood up like analogies to Medieval _Western_ Europe. The Byzantines, after all, still had more in common with the great realms of the ancient world than the petty kinglets of the Middle Ages.

:
: : : : 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.

: : Then again the HR Empire had its imperial cities where "Stadt-luft macht frei" (Sp?) for example.

: Among other eccentricities...

: It was a realm where feudalism truly ran away with the game. What was it they said of the Holy Roman Empire? That it was neither very holy, nor Roman, and not much of an empire.

:
: : : NUMENOREANS AS TRADERS?

: :: ...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.

: : I agree most maritime nations are traders - though not all island nations - Tokugawa Japan for example. Even so you don't get the impression that Romenna or Pelargir were great emporia - not Venices or Genoas.

: Well, Tokugawa Japan wasn't much of a maritime nation. The only sea commerce it possessed was mostly focused on inter-island trade. But all of the great maritime nations of history - the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Portunguese, the Dutch, the English - have been great traders. Trade, I would argue, is really a prerequisite for sea power. In this respect, exceptional as the Numenoreans were, I don't think they were all that different.

However, the Romans turned themselves into a first-rate naval power in their wars against Carthage, but they never really developed a home-grown trading empire. The Roman Empire had lots of sea trading but from the first it was largely in the hands of Greeks and Levantines.

: : : [...]

:
: : : : 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 yeoman-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.

: : It would rather depend if the lower classes of Numenor moved up one or two social notches when given the opportunity presented by the presence of "Lesser men" in their settlements in ME. Not something JRRT dwells on.

: Excellent point! They likely did move up in caste if there were men of lesser blood settled in the area, such as Lamedon and Lossarnach.

: [...]

:
: : : : 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.

: : Even so you have the predator-prey ratio to consider - there are always many more wildebeest than Hyenas!

: Perhaps the mountains were overrun with a special breed of mountain wildebeest...

:
: [...]

: : : 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.

: : It is difficult to selectively choose some elements of meaning from a word and avoid others, you get the whole as a "Job lot."

: Well, again, the danger is in reading too much into it. I doubt that Tolkien put that much thought inot it. He reached for a handy word, and "knight" was available. Perhaps he felt that a Sindarin term would be overly distracting. I think it's dangerous to assume too much about how the Gondorians may have supported such units by social structure. Likely there were parallels, no question. I think of Gondorian knights as: skilled, strong, metal-clad mounted warriors of some (not fully defined) social distinction. And beyond that, we're left to speculate.

Social distinction wedded to equestrian war prowess - it still sounds rather feudal. A Late Roman clibanarius had all the physical trappings of a Mediaeval knight but it gave him no particular social rank. His contemporary the Persian clibanarius however, coming from a semi-feudal state (funny I hadn't thought of Sassanid Persia as a feudal exemplar before) would definitely be a member of the lesser aristocracy.

: : : : : 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. :-)

: : Perhaps an invitation down to the pub of an evening would have been more kindly to our learned friend - might have loosened his tongue a little also ;)

: Long have I dreamed of that! But I would likely be too petrified with fear to ask him much. Better to get him to get it down on paper, I think. :-)

From what one can gather JRRT seems to have been fairly affable, not as inclined to snap as his creation Gandalf!

: : : : Thanks for a good discussion.

: : : Happy to oblige.

: Likewise.