: Not intended to daunt - merely to convert ;) Repent ye
: unbeliever, embrace feudalism! Millions of Mediaeval Europeans
: cannot have been wrong.

Such religious zeal. You must be a Crusader! :)

: : 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.

: Suza is a wide enough term ,I admit, to embrace Morthond etc.
: but there is an apparent difference between these districts and
: such as Anorien, which might be expected to be apparent in the
: use of more specific terms - terms, however, we have not been
: given.

Not yet, anyway. I still have high hopes for seeing more material published.

: : : 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.

: The capital city of a state is rarely identical with the state,
: if you exclude city-states of the classical model (and Imperial
: Rome which grew from one). The fact that Gondor had two
: capital cities through its history reinforces this point. The
: state of Osgiliath was not supplanted by the state of Minas
: Tirith, the capital of the continuing state of Gondor was
: merely moved.

I think we're drifting apart here (and the fault is probably mine). I was disagreeing with your saying the Suza of Minas Tirith could only have included the townlands mentioned in the book. I'm saying that Minas Tirith was the chief city of Anorien, not just the chief city of Gondor. As Minas Anor it was clearly the abode of the lord of Anorien (Anarion). It should not have lost that function after Isildur commended care of the kingdom to Meneldil.

: : 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).

: I would imagine that the Prince gained the lion's share of the
: revenues of Belfalas, with a subsidiary amount entering the
: state treasury. On the other hand I would guess that the
: revenues of Anorien etc. entered the state purse directly. In
: this regard the regions of Anorien, Ithilien, Lebennin and
: Calenardon would be more important to the state.

Here we are left totally to guess on our own. Tolkien doesn't speak of revenues, although clearly his representation of Gondor implies there was a monied economy and the government had to operate on something.

: : 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.

: In a society without organised religion or priests, the idea of
: a priest-king is a little anachronistic. That the king had
: some religious functions I don't doubt, but I would see these
: as magnifications of those rites carried out by the heads of
: households and families. So perhaps a patriarchal king would
: be a more accurate term with the state as an ultimately
: extended family.

Tolkien used the term "lineal priest kings" to describe them. I don't believe the massive populations implied by the sizes of the armies could be culturally viewed as an extended family.

Letter 156, which I don't have time to cite here, is the reference I have in mind.

: : 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.

: The interview is personal, the relationship seems to be also -
: why the physical closeness - the sword on lap. Pippin might
: merely have sworn an oath standing holding up his hand or
: clutching his testicles like a Roman (the origin of the term
: testament). This personal content to the ceremony is very much
: in the feudal mode.

The interview is unquestionably personal. In fact, I think you've overlooked the stronger argument in your favor. Why does Pippin offer his service? To repay the debt he feels for Boromir's sacrifice.

Nonetheless, I cannot view the oath as a personal oath of service to Denethor based on this evidence alone. Denethor's later words may sway me to that view, but I need to think about this (I refer to his statement, "I have sworn him to my service").

The question of whether Pippin swore personal service to Denethor, though it cannot prove or disprove overall views of feudalism, would probably make an interesting essay.

: : 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.

: The military situation (whatever its historical development)
: does seem to parallel what we can gather of the situation in
: Gondor. That is: a central standing force supported by a
: provincial, probably non-professional, levy. A semi-feudal
: situation like Late A-S England does produce a good fit for the
: information we are given.

But such forces are found outside of feudalism as well. This is insufficient evidence to speak of feudal arrangements.

: : : 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.

: Yes - that's what my point was about.

No, I mean they are not represented as the personal followings of the various lords.

: : : 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.

: These men are given implied importance in the society of
: Gondor. If their "Lordship" does not include some measure of a
: feudal-like relationship to the folk of their districts then
: they are reduced to the status of merely wealthy men with
: hereditary leadership of militias, probably acting as
: tax-farmers for the state. Not very heroic or honourable
: positions. There is no evidence of appointed provincial
: governors for the regions of Gondor, so the lords seem to have
: some real measure of rule over their districts. For them to do
: so implies a measure of material interaction with their
: inferiors in mutual dependancy, otherwise what is the point of
: having hereditary provincial governors? The state would just
: appoint the best man available. This does not seem to be so,
: therefore there must have been important local factors placing
: hereditary power into the lordly family - the most obvious
: being ties of interdependance due to feudation of land.

It is not the positions they hold within their society but the deeds, honor, and courage these men perform and possess which make them great. The feudal relationship arises out of a need for protection and aid, but hereditary lordships in a large state with a strong economy doesn't diminish the stature of the men.

Let us suggest that France was never feudal. In other words, let us suppose that its economy did not collapse, and that the Franks somehow were able to maintain the Roman system, merely transferring the revenues to their own upkeep. This is completely absurd, but my point is that the Frankish lords still would have subdivided the state among their sons. Clovis would have left behind a system intact but a land divided. The Merovingians therefore would have maintained larger, standing armies.

Now, how does one reward one's followers in such a society? Be bestowing wealth on them, of course, but does that raise them up above the self-made rich? No. The grant of titles of nobility creates a socially higher class within the society.

Now, let us suppose this system still brings about the decadence of the Merovingians so the Pepinids take over rule of the state. These men bring an end to the political divisions but appoint counts from the local nobility to command the local defense forces. The counts pass their offices on to their sons and establish a line of hereditary military offices. There is no land exchanged for personal service as the counts are officers in the service of the state.

This appears to be what happened in Gondor. Nobility doesn't just come with prerogatives, it comes with responsibilities. The armed forces in the local region belong to Gondor, not to the lord. He has a duty to lead or appoint an officer to lead the defense forces in time of war. He also serves on the Great Council and advises the King (or the Steward) on matters of policy and law.

Furthermore, he may accumulate personal wealth and perhaps hire personal retainers (essentially a company of bodyguards) to accompany him into battle, but not to administer (or defend or police) the Suza which has been given to his care. This can explain the references to the household troops.

Elendil and his sons must have found many, many people living in Middle-earth. Among them, perhaps, were some relatives to whom Elendil gave the title "prince". What does this mean? It means they were granted recognition of their priority in arrival. They were there first. For whatever reason, they chose not to become kings themselves, but instead accepted the rule and overlordship of Elendil's house.

The Numenorean system doesn't appear to be feudal. Athough there were Lords of Andunie, they were not appointed feudal vassals for reasons of defense. Who threatened Numenor? No one. They seem rather to have derived ultimately from clan leaders who succeeded the House of Beor in their lordship over the Beorians.

The real issue is whather Tolkien's definition for "suza" can be extended back to early Numenorean times. The Numenorean system would not have been perfectly preserved in Middle-earth, but it would have survived in some form. Hence, a clan leadership may have been present when the Exiles arrived and was therefore incorporated into the governments of Gondor and Arnor. By recognizing the clan leaders with grants of nobility, Elendil was sustaining their local authority while subsuming it to a royal authority. Hence, no feudal contract would have been put into place.

It is a simpler system that fits what we know well. I cannot say there are no assumptions involved in this picture, but it eliminates many assumptions which a fully feudal society would require. The issue of who owns the land is negated. There is no need for serfdom (and there appear to be no serfs in Middle-earth) as the free men don't ever have to give up their freedom (and their land) to local lords in exchange for protection. The army of the state was their defense, and clearly Elendil and his successors possessed large armies. Feudal systems don't favor or support large armies.

I submit that the Dunadan governments were a refinement of a tribal system which evolved in Numenor to a formalized relationship between the king and the clan-lords. Long after the clans lost their significance the system remained in place.

The emphasis on ethnic divisions in Gondor (especially at the time of the Kin-Strife) implies a tradition of clan loyalties. One is expected to stay loyal to the blood, as it were, and this implies there may have been a strong clan tradition in Gondor -- perhaps strong enough to form the basis for their lordships.

The definition for "suza" would fit well with this type of arrangement, better -- I think -- than with a purely feudal arrangement.
------------------
Parma Endorion: Essays on Middle-earth, Revised Edition