Gondor seems to have some similarities to feudalism, but I wouldn't say it fits in perfectly to feudalism.
Of course the definition of feudalism varies and is still debated today; but there seem to be 3 common elements that everyone agrees on...the Lord, the vassal, and the fief. As
Raynor mentions it's kind of like a relationship between the Lord and his vassals. It's an agreement upon both sides, works kind of like a loan. The Lord still owns this land, but he would divide it up and give it to his vassals.
The vassal is is given sovereignty to govern, and collect the revenue of his land. Also, since the Lord still owns the land the Lord must protect his land. In return the vassal must swear two oaths...an oath of fealty and of homage. The act of homage is the vassal promising to his Lord that he (and his army) would fight whenever the lord commands it. The oath of fealty is one of faithfulness, that the vassal would remain faithful to the lord.
That's kind of the general concept of feudalism, it can get into peasantry and manoralism...etc, however that's kind of where it gets complicated and debated.
I think we do see some of this in Gondor; as
Kuru mentions the Lords do march in their armies to Minas Tirith when Denethor calls them in. This certainly seems like feudalism...however I wonder if the 'princedoms' in Gondor were sovereign. I think that's what truly makes it a feudal system. The Lords of Gondor may swear fealty to the King (or Steward) and bring in their armies when it's called, but that doesn't mean its feudalism. To truly be feudalism the princedoms would have to have sovereignty (to an extent). Because true feudalism was the Lord let the vassal run and govern their own fief; and in return the vassal would have to stay true to the two oaths he made. It was sort of like a loan relationship between the Lord and his vassal.
The question with Gondor is were these 'princedoms' sovereign from the King/Steward? It doesn't appear to be that way, as all these I think were still under the laws of the King and the Steward. Therefor, it would seem to be as
Raynor puts it more for administrative purposes...to control the exspansive area better.
Anyway, swearing fealty and homage doesn't necessarily make it a feudal system. I think sovereignty also has to be a key aspect. I've always seen the seperate princedoms as not having their own sovereignty, but still as subject and under the 'laws of the King.' Which really seperates it from a true feudal society and many historians believe there were very few of these 'feudalisms.'
Feudalsim wasn't even thought about until the early 1600's (long after such societies existed) and many historians doubt if feudal societies existed for a long period of time. Elizabeth Brown (later expanded by Susan Reynolds in
Fiefs and Vassals) have been trying to get feudalism out of the English dictionary. Since such a term has so many varying definitions and at best describe small parts of Southern France for a short period of time in the 9th and 10th centuries. They doubt that such a 'feudal society' existed as the way it is defined today. Susan Reynolds goes on to support the French Revolution view of Feudalsim (who got their ideas from Karl Marx):
a social system based on a society in which peasant agriculture is the fundamental productive activity; in which slavery is non-existent or marginal but peasants are tied to the land in some way; and in which a small elite defined by military activity dominates (Source
Fordham University)
The key element in feudalism is the lord-vassal relationship. It's an
agreement that
both sides enter into. The Lord loans a fief to the vassal and the vassal is free to govern and collect the revenue of that land...in return swears fealty and homage. There is doubt to whether such societies like this existed, or if they did it wasn't for very long...as the vassals had their own soveriegnty.
In Gondor, I don't think there was sovereignty...the Lords had to swear allegiance to the King yes, but that doesn't mean they were sovereign over their own areas. That's like if a King just came in and took over seperate Kingdom, the kingdom he conquered would have to swear loyalty to him; that doesn't make it sovereign now, that just means there's a new king in town controlling things.
I think in Gondor the Lords were still subject to the King (or the Steward) and took care of their area so the King/Steward could better control his realm. As these lords (or vassals to the King) always appeared to be subject and under the 'laws of the King.':
Quote:
|
"Each new Steward indeed took office with the oath ’to hold rod and rule in the name of the king, until he shall return’. But these soon became words of ritual little heeded, for the Stewards exercised all the power of the Kings. Yet many in Gondor still believed that a king would indeed return..... But against such thoughts the Ruling Stewards hardened their hearts"~Appendix A: The Stewards
|
This always struck me as saying the Kings were in charge of Gondor...and if there was no King the Steward would rule in his place to protect the throne until a King return. And very soon the Stewards didn't want a King to come back and began to rule as if they were the King...certainly by Denethor's time there is somewhere in a letter which states had Denethor lived after the War of the Ring he would have ruled over as a tyrant. This has always come off to me as the Lords of the realms were under the laws of the King. If it was a true feudal system the King would play a hands-off role and let his vassals run their fiefs as they see fit. As long as these vassals remained loyal to him and kept up their side of the agreement.