What's this?!

[Bêthberry]

Fascinating topic, Kuru. (It would be unkind to wish you ill more often! )

Perhaps the answer to the absence of civil strife in Gondor lies in a similar absence of strife in The Shire. Both represent somewhat idealised versions of social order and/or organisation.

May you recover in time to enjoy the seasonal festivities.

[Lalwendë]

Gondor certainly has its 'provinces', 'fiefdoms', whatever you wish to call places such as Dol Amroth. It also has Rohan, and it's in Rohan where we see an incident that probably points the way towards how Gondor was ruled. Aragorn arrives at Meduseld and does not want to subject himself to Theoden's wishes in laying his arms aside before he enters the hall; Gandalf advises him that this would be the wrong thing to do. So possibly the way that Gondor and its 'client kingdoms' have been ruled with a sense of respect, particularly necessary in the absence of the King. It's also clear that rule has been considerably at arms length during the Stewardship with relations between Gondor and Rohan for example growing ever more distant (though not as far as frosty).

Maybe Gondor is run almost as a 'commonwealth' during this time? The Kingship of Gondor is dormant, to some no doubt passed away entirely, and the other nations are now effectively independent. Under a Commonwealth nations are indeed fully independent but share the historic allegiance to one another; aside from being fully independent (this does not come until Aragorn takes his throne - presumably only the King has the Authority to do this?) they are allied to Gondor and one another.

[Kuruharan]

In fact, the only relation I could describe as feudal is that between King Aragorn and Prince Faramir, whereby one is granted land administration in exchange of fealty, counselling and military aid.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with that. First of all, on a very small scale, you have the oath-taking of Pippin to Denethor (although it may be an important point that Pippin did not appear to swear to Denethor personally). Secondly, there is the matter of the Princes of Dol Amroth (who appear to be virtually independent sovereigns, but Imrahil speaks of owing fealty). Then there are all of these Lords of Somesuchplace that come marching in to Minas Tirith.

What the situation between Aragorn and Faramir does indicate is that Aragorn probably wasn’t going to change the system (whatever that was).

Gondor was, in some ways, an ideal state.

Hmmm…not sure I agree with that either. Tolkien certainly viewed them as being a positive realm, but I’m not sure ideal is the right word. The Gondorians were always portrayed as being very proud of themselves, particularly in the days of their power. Tolkien’s feeling about this seems to be a bit ambiguous. Proud people tend also to be some of the more fractious. I have a hard time believing that the Gondorian nobility could have had the power to cause trouble (and in this I specifically mean that the lords had military forces at their command that were loyal to them) and not have done so at some point out of the goodness of their hearts. They were a virtuous nation, as far as that goes, but they were not all saints.

Maybe Gondor is run almost as a 'commonwealth' during this time?

Hmmm…there’s an interesting idea.

[littlemanpoet]

History readily provides the basic reason why there was less strife in Gondorian feudal society. They had a common enemy. Whereas in European history a common enemy could be taken advantage of in order to leverage a particular feudal lord's personal gain relative to his king, Sauron could not be so leveraged, for obvious reasons.

[Boromir88]

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.':

"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.

[littlemanpoet]

Perhaps it is best not to define the term into oblivion; that is, giving it such a rarified definition that only a rare moment in history fits it. Actually, recent (well in the last 25 years anyway) research and rethinking reveal that feudalism first came into existence in (modern day) Italy, and it was between peasantry who couldn't afford the exorbitant taxes of the fossilized Empire on one hand, nor the ravages of the outlaws whom the decaying empire could no longer control; thus, those who owned land and could field a small army, promised to protect the peasantry in return for the peasants handing over their land and wealth, reducing them to serfdom; better to be alive and in thrall to a known lord than alive and slave to a barbarian, or worse, dead.

We are not really given all that much to go on regarding Gondor in LotR. I rereading of the appendices seems in order......

[Boromir88]

Perhaps it is best not to define the term into oblivion; that is, giving it such a rarified definition that only a rare moment in history fits it.

And that's the unsolved debate. Feudalism has so many varying definitions with different viewpoints...what actually was feudalism? Did feudalism really ever exist...etc, by no means is it solved, nor probably will it ever.

In general it's a relationship between a Lord (or you could say King), his vassal, and their fief. There are obligations of each, anything else about the sovereignty...etc was simply a different viewpoint of feudalism (which knowing me was probably a bit biased ).

Gondor is divided up with lords and their principalities, but I don't know if that makes it feudal or not.

[Raynor]

Interestingly enough, a rather ... feudal term is used to describe southern regions in the appendices or at the Last debate: fiefs. Then again, we would have to go back to our definition of feudalism, should we ever want to see this to some end.