All right, since it doesn't refer to a single, specific thing, I'll concede it is somewhat loose. However, I don't regard it as a vague term.

: : No other word has been offered by Tolkien. Lebennin, at the
: : very least, is enumerated among the "fiefs of the south"
: : (although I'm not sure of where you are getting that phrase
: : from -- the only place I can find "fiefs" is in Letter 347):

: Fief(s) occurs a number of times in LOTR as does, to the best
: of my memory, the specific phrase "Fiefs of the south." No
: other Westron word is given, though whether SUZA could be
: applied to any other than the examples given by Tolkien is open
: to question due to the apparent difference between these and
: the other sub-divisions of Gondor , ie the lack of greater
: lords.

I don't believe there is any reason to withhold "suza" from the other lands. Gondor had gone through many political changes by the end of the Third Age -- many of its Dunadan families seem to have died out. If all the "greater lords" were Dunedain, their absence is explainable.

: :

: :   ...It may be noted that at the end of the Third Age there
: : were prob. more people (Men) that knew Q., or spoke S., than
: : there were Elves who did either!  Though dwindling, the
: : population of Minas Tirith and its fiefs must have been much
: : greater than that of Lindon, Rivendell, and
: :  Lorien.
: : 

: : Here he speaks of Minas Tirith's fiefs.

: He is speaking very generally and without, I might say, much
: precision. Imagine telling someone from Texas he lived in a
: province of Washington! The fiefs were self evidently Gondor's
: - Minas Tirith only being the capital of the state not the
: state. By his own suza definition the suza of Minas Tirith
: could only have included the "Townlands" enclosed by the
: Rammas.

No, I don't think so. Minas Tirith was the chief city of Anorien, just as Minas Ithil was the chief city of Ithilien. After the decline of Osgiliath Minas Tirith became the capitol of the entire kingdom.

: : Well, actually, the original five areas of Gondor appear to
: : have been Anorien, Ithilien, Calenardhon, Belfalas, and
: : Lebennin. I have long suggested that there were three
: : princely houses (ruling Calenardhon, Lebennin, and Belfalas)
: : beside the House of Elendil in Gondor.

: : In "Minas Tirith" Tolkien mentions "the great fief of
: : Belfalas".

: That would seem to belong to the Princes of Dol Amroth and so
: would not be a core area of the State of Gondor by my
: reckoning.

I don't understand what you mean by "core area of the State of Gondor". Are you referring to the autonomy the princes of Belfalas enjoyed after the end of the kingly line? Imrahil appears nonetheless to have been a member of Denethor's council, and not simply an ally. His status with respect to Denethor is unique among the other lords, but as far as I can tell Belfalas is still considered to be part of Gondor (and was one of the original five regions -- in UNFINISHED TALES Tolkien states that Elendil bestowed the title of "prince" on Imrahil's family).

: : No such lords are ever referred to, however. One can suppose
: : many things must have existed in Middle-earth, and argue that
: : since Tolkien never said they did not exist it is reasonable
: : to say they did or could have. But the system of government
: : was much less sophisticated than all that. The Numenorean
: : system was based on priest-kings, and European feudalism had
: : nothing like that.

: The Mediaeval Byzantine emperor was "Christ's Vice-Gerent on
: Earth" and "Equal to the Apostles" which is pretty much
: sacerdotal in character (more than the Pope claims anyhow).
: Western European rulers were anointed, which was a feature
: taken from the ceremony of priest-making.

These were not "priest-kings". The Numenorean priest-kings actively led the worship of Iluvatar. They and they alone were the ones who made the sacrifices of first fruits. Aragorn restored this system, according to Tolkien. The closest equivalent I can think of from history would be (possibly) the Mesopotamian priest-kings. Maybe the Egyptian pharoahs had religious duties. I'm not sure.

: The Shire wasn't "given away" in the sense that Calenardhon
: was. Nor was Ithilien given away.

: Both were disposed from direct crown control. The only
: distinction for Calenardon was that, in addition, the state
: relinquished all claims to sovereignty over it.

Fair enough. The "Prince of Ithilien" issue is one of the foundations for the feudalism argument. I agree the land was not under Aragorn's direct administration, but that in itself does not confirm a feudal relationship.

: : Are you referring to Legolas' people? They did not take
: : Ithilien for their own. There is no connotation of "royal
: : lands" in Tolkien's definition of "suza". The lands which
: : became the Shire were indeed once a "royal demesne" as you
: : suggest, but Tolkien doesn't appear to use the term in the
: : feudal sense. It was never "Ar-Suza" (or whatever). It was
: : simply a suza, a suza of the hobbits, after they were
: : given permission to settle there.

: A mere possibility, given that all the regions which Tolkien
: gives the name suza to appear to have been ruled directly by
: the crown at some time, as far as we can tell.

Well, can't actually tell about Lebennin. Anorien and Ithilien were certainly once "crown lands". I've wondered lately if "Cardolan" doesn't contain the word "-lhann".

: : First of all, Pippin did swear fealty, but to Gondor before
: : anyone else:

: :

: : 'Here do I swear fealty and service to Gondor, and to the
: : Lord and Steward of the realm, to speak and to be silent,
: : to do and to let be, to come and to go, in need or plenty,
: : in peace or war, in living or dying, from this hour
: : henceforth, until my lord release me, or death take me, or
: : the world end.  So say I, Peregrin son of Paladin of the
: : Shire of the Halflings.'
: : 

: : Were Gondor not named first and foremost, I could easily
: : agree this was an oath of personal fealty between a lord and
: : his personal servant. But Gondor is named first, and
: : so Pippin's fealty is more to Gondor than to Denethor (who is
: : not even named -- only his office is given). When Beregond
: : first meets Pippin he says, "I am told you have been sworn to
: : the service of the Lord and of the City." Again, Pippin's
: : service is not recognized as a personal allegiance to
: : Denethor.

: Feudal fealty often had clauses in it specifically citing
: another binding oath. A man might swear fealty to a lord -
: "saving my duty to the king". This enshrines the duty of a
: vassal to his immediate superior for anything except an act of
: outright treason. The clause about Gondor could be seen in
: this light.

Pippin's first loyalty is to Gondor, not to Denethor. It is therefore not a feudal oath of personal fealty.

: : He swears nothing, whereas Pippin swears fealty and service
: : to Gondor and its Steward.

: He acknowledges his side of the relationship in what sounds a
: very binding speech, he says he will love, honour and if
: necessary punish his protégé. He admittedly does not utter the
: words oath or swear - but the meaning and gravity of his words
: are clear.

He is not returning oath for oath. He cannot, really, since Pippin is not his personal servant. Pippin is eventually ASSIGNED to attend Denethor, and that pretty much indicates that he was not sworn to Denethor's service to begin with.

: : But Faramir has no lordship. He is merely a prince, a man of
: : noble, son of the House which rules Gondor. If Faramir was a
: : feudal lord under Denethor then he had a fief: what was that
: : fief? None is mentioned.

: I answered what I took to be your original point, by saying
: that a high-born man in a feudal society could also be a
: military officer. The "Crown Prince" in a feudal state may or
: may not have been separately invested with his own lands, as
: far as Faramir is concerned we do not know. However, his being
: a "Captain" in the Gondorian army is not a bar to him holding
: land or title.

My point was that the titles themselves don't show a feudal relationship between Faramir and Denethor. You're right -- so far as we know, he is not barred from holding land or title, but note that Denethor is never said to be the true lord of Minas Tirith or Anorien. These are the domain of the kings. He is the "lord" because he rules in the kings' place.

: : Here you are assuming that Gondor could not support as many
: : soldiers as it required, and yet previously (in a section I
: : have snipped for brevity) you agreed that Gondor had a
: : standing army for most of its history. Were you then
: : implying you don't think Gondor had a standing army under
: : Denethor? I have already shown he had a large and diverse
: : force with several commands. The army appears indeed to have
: : been a standing force in his time.

: I think it is self evident that Gondor's regular forces were
: inadequate for the emergency of the Mordorian invasion. Why
: else call out the followers of the provincial lords?

We don't know that they were the followers of the provincial lords. We can be pretty certain that Dol Amroth's forces had a certain autonomy (since Tolkien said the prince's were autonomous). But Angbor, lord of Lamedon, may have raised an army only under the authority of the Steward and the Council. Nowhere does Tolkien say the forces he is leading are his personal followers (and he leads four thousand men on foot to Minas Tirith after the battle at Pelargir).

I think the whole matter of these "outland forces" is very ambiguous. You and others favor saying they are the personal (feudal) forces of the lords who led them to Minas Tirith, but Tolkien doesn't say that. The text doesn't dwell on whose authority they depended.

It's true that the townspeople of Minas Tirith are disappointed in the fact that only a tenth of the expected reinforcements arrive, but that is no indication of whose decision it was to hold back the greater part of the other forces. It may have been Denethor's alone, the Council's, or the provincial lords. We simply cannot know who made that choice. But Denethor certainly viewed himself as the lord of Gondor and not merely the lord of Minas Tirith. He felt a responsibility for the entire kingdom.

: No doubt Gondor's standing army was adequate for patrolling
: borders against small-scale raids, for garrisoning key
: fortifications and carrying out "Policing" duties. However,
: for emergencies having a readily mobilisable force of trained
: warriors, which normally would not be a drain on the state
: resources, would be a great asset.

A reserve or militia would accomplish as much. The vast majority of the reinforcements who march to Minas Tirith look anything but professional. There are herdsmen, fishermen, small villagers among them. Some of the reinforcements (such as Imrahil's several hundred soldiers) definitely seem to be professional. Others are described too vaguely for us to be sure of what their background was.

: The Late Anglo-Saxon system was exactly analogous. The king
: had his standing army of Huscarles and Butsecarles (marines)
: adequate for the King's and state's day-to-day needs, but when
: a serious threat emerged the King would levy the Select Fyrd
: and maybe the General Fyrd, thereby perhaps quintupling (or
: more) his forces. The select Fyrd consisted of the semi-
: feudal regional elite of Thegns and Drengs, all well armed and
: armoured and usually seasoned soldiers. The General Fyrd was
: more like a folk-army and less well equipped and useful.
: So - no am not saying that Denethor did not have a standing
: army, just that it was self evidently inadequate, on its own,
: to deal with a major invasion.

But Gondor did not evolve politically and socially the way Anglo-Saxon England did. Harold led a finally united England against William the Conqueror, if you're referring to the army of his day. Going back before the Danish kings, Wessex had only just begun to unite the Anglo-Saxons at the end of the tenth century.

Gondor, on the other hand, had always been a united realm from its founding. When the Line of Anarion failed the Princes of Belfalas became essentially autonomous but continued to respect the authority of the Stewards. It may be significant that Tolkien says Faramir stood after Imrahil in order of importance in Aragorn's realm. The Princes of Belfalas were that powerful.

: : The soldiers brought from the coastlands may or may not have
: : been regular forces, but they need not be feudal forces if
: : they were not regular soldiers.

: These soldiers are represented as the followings of the various
: lords, which tends to suggest that they were not regular
: soldiers. If Tolkien had said "Lord Angbor Captain-General of
: the Coasts with his regiment" the opposite would be true, but
: this is not the impression given.

But they are not represented so. In fact, the men of Lamedon and the fisher-folk of the Ethir have no lords to lead them (Angbor was lord of Lamedon, but he didn't send any captain in his place to lead the Lamedonians). Duinhir is not said to be lord of anything, nor to be anything more than the captain of the five hundred bowmen from Morthond.

All Tolkien really said of Angbor was that he was "lord of Lamedon". That does not imply a feudal relationship any more than it implies some other relationship.

: Having said this, the alternative to these soldiers not being
: feudal levies is to have the provincial lords merely hereditary
: militia-leaders. Which rather leaves these poor souls in a
: political limbo and goes against their apparent importance and
: prominence in the narrative.

I don't see that it goes against their importance at all. These are the heroes of modern Gondor, men renowned for whatever reason. Aragorn names Angbor "the Fearless" in honor of the latter's courage when the Dead arrived at Ethring. The fact Angbor was defending Linhir in Lebennin may be significant. He was a long way from Lamedon at that point.

: : : ...The military followers of the lords were probably
: : : largely part-time soldiers and were no doubt materially
: : : supported by their own lands or subsidy by their lords, a
: : : very attractive proposition for a hard pressed state.

: : There is great reason to doubt such a system existed in
: : Gondor. The fact none is mentioned is foremost in my mind,
: : but also the descriptions of the men who marched to Minas
: : Tirith indicates most were not land-holders, or leaves them
: : in an ambiguous state:

[citation snipped]

: : Much has been made of the knights of Dol Amroth, but the
: : fisher-folk from the Ethir, the "few grim hill-men" from
: : Lamedon, the "gallant green-clad men" of Pinnath Gelin, and
: : the "hunters and herdsmen and men of many little villages"
: : don't sound at all like feudal land-holders, let alone
: : semi-professional soldiers.

: The appearance and few numbers of the provincial soldiery only
: indicates the poverty and depopulation of Gondor. It also
: seems that the Fiefs (in general) did not send their best or
: greatest number - in a rather ambiguous statement Tolkien says
: that only a tithe (tenth part) of their strength came to Minas
: Tirith. In which case around 27,000 other troops stayed in the
: southlands - plenty of room in that number for more troops in
: the mould of the Swan-Knights.

Maybe, but no such soldiery are ever mentioned in "The Last Debate". Aragorn brings a motley force with him on the ships. This was Gondor's last hour, mind you. And it's not like Denethor had not had warning of what was to come. He had had months to prepare and train these men.

I'm not saying Gondor was waging total war as a modern state would, but nearly every man in Minas Tirith was a combatant of some sort.

: : Stability amidst what sort of chaos? Where was the social
: : breakdown which should have led to feudalism? Gondorian law
: : was ancient and hale even at the end of the Third Age.

: There seem to have been some inner tensions in Gondor - between
: pure-bred Dunedain and "Lesser men" between the north and south
: - or at least between Minas Tirith and the provinces. A large
: part of the south seem to have placed their interests vis-a-vis
: the Corsair threat higher than any duty to protect the capital.

You're inferring that Denethor had no part in the decision to withhold the troops. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that. In fact, Beregond, having no rank or significance in the guard of the White Tower, seems to be of the opinion that Denethor was indeed in control (whether rightly or wrongly -- I am merely setting one distant citizen's point-of-view against another's).

: : You assume many things to support the idea of feudalism, but
: : the very requirement of making so many assumptions
: : underscores the great weakness in the feudalism argument.
: : This is not Tolkien's Middle-earth but another one quite
: : different from what he described.

: Quite the contrary it, a semi-feudal polity, is the best-fit we
: have given the primary data.

I don't believe so. When you say "semi-feudal" I think you mean something that bridges the gap between a strong central authority and the sort of chaos we perceive when looking at Europe's history (although it didn't seem all that chaotic back then, I'm sure). But there are many missing pieces to the puzzle.

------------------
Parma Endorion: Essays on Middle-earth, Revised Edition