I think the below arguments do a nice job.

But one thing that has been forgotten is: what exactly does medieval mean?

If we take the broad definition of medieval that Michael gives below, then Medieval Europe would have comprised everything from Anglo-Saxon Britain, to Moorish Spain, to the Byzantine Empire (in both it's glory under Justinian, and its defeat by the Ottomans), Russia (from its early days as a Kievian principality to the growing Tsarist empire), France (under the Merovingians and the Capetians), and Germany under Charlemange (and into the Reformation), back to a Spain ruled by a pair of xenophobic Christians on the verge of conquering an entire hemisphere, and finally all the way back to England under Henry VII.

And if we include Spain, do we include North Africa and the Middle-east under the great Islamic empire (which was much more technologically advanced than Europe at the time), stretching from Morocco to India? Do we include India?

Many accept that Japanese society was fuedal, but was it *medieval*? How about imperial China? Or the empires of South and Central America?

All these existed in the period between 500 and 1500 AD, but do they really have any similarities? Or, conversely, is there anything that really distinguishes them?

In general, *medieval* is a term that is good for litttle more than passing description.

*Fuedal* on the other hand is something more concrete. Historians generally tend to define fuedalism as much more specific, in terms of a society at a period of development which is dependent on a lord-vassal system of rights and responsibilities in which a system of semislavery (serfdom) exists. In this sense, we can distinguish between Europe and Imperial China during the same period, between Japan (which was fuedal) and India (which was not).

Does Middle-earth, or more accurately, any of the nations in Middle-earth , fit this definition?

The Shire clearly doesn't. The Thain and the Master of Buckland are really only patriarchs of families, little more than figureheads to the rest of the country. The Mayor of Hobbiton - probably derived from the office of Lord Mayor of London - is explicitly stated to be a figurehead. There is very little in the way of formalized power.

Gondor. This is a hearder question because we seem to get quite a lot about the details (succession, internal politics, expansion), but it is all of a vague nature. Sometimes it seems fuedal, but do we really want to assume that the farmers and fisherfolk of the outlying lands were the serfs of the Kings and Stewards (and therefore Aragorn), compelled to devote a significant amount of uncompensated labor to the service of the crown. Is Gondor a nation of slaves? If so, why all the references to living in slavery under Sauron? If so, is living under the winged crown of Gondor any better than under the iron heel of Sauron?

I am prepared to say that many aspects of fuedalism crept into life in Gondor. Particularly in the later days under Denethor.

Just things to think about.

Gotta go.

Dave C-Q