What's this?!

[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.

[Kuruharan]

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.

Hmmm...potentially profound point here.

However, at the time when Gondor was at its peak, Sauron was nowhere to be found. After his fall at the end of the Second Age, Gondor didn't really have an arch-rival for a long, long time. I'm not sure how influential the potential presence of a common enemy could be.

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).

I'm almost certain that I saw somewhere that the Princes of Dol Amroth were virtually sovereign. Of course, I can't find it right now so maybe I dreamed it up...

I think Boromir88 has a good definition of what I was wondering about, however, there is one thing that I would add which I believe is the most important factor (at least from my perspective). Who is it that actually controls the military? Do the soldiers from areas away from Minas Tirith swear their loyalty to their local lord or do they swear to the King/Steward? (The issue of mercenaries could complicate things immensely, so I'll ignore it and focus on native troops). Pippin swore to the Steward, but he was essentially swearing from Minas Tirith and I assume that soldiers from the City and its attached lands (Ithilien and Anorien the "royal" fiefs) would swear likewise.

Potential parallel between England and Gondor: I also seem to remember reading somewhere that the Duneadan were a small class of rulers in Gondor over a much larger population of other peoples. This is similar to early Medieval England and the Normans and Saxons. However, I'm inclined to discount the importance of this in keeping the ruling class together. First of all, there is no indication of any tension of this nature (at least internally, the Kin-Strife was similar but external). Second, the Saxon population of England were no barrier at all to the Norman lords avidly thumping each other (see The Anarchy).

[littlemanpoet]

The normal practice was to guarantee so many knights per fighting season to one's feudal lord. If a vassal had twenty knights and had guaranteed (or whatever the correct word is) 10 knights to the lord, that left him 10 knights for other purposes. This seems to be reflected in the part of LotR where the various vassal lords are sending such small pittances of soldiery to Minas Tirith to help.

Gondor always had Harad to contend with. But it seems that there was more nationalistic (if I may use such a word in the context of Middle Earth) fervor in Third Age Midde Earth compared to medieval Europe. Gondorians, given a chance to leverage against the Steward by means of Harad or the Easterlings, one gets the sense from the way Tolkien has presented things, that Gondorians tended not to attempt such things.

Kin-strife, however, was more a problem, eh?

[Boromir88]

This seems to be reflected in the part of LotR where the various vassal lords are sending such small pittances of soldiery to Minas Tirith to help.~lmp

Or it could just be people fled from going to Minas Tirith. There is the part in Minas Tirith when the Lords are coming in with there armies and the statement 'always too few than what was expected.' This could mean maybe what you said, or perhaps people just fled not wanting to fight. That was also I think a possibility, considering soldiers did flee before reaching the Black Gate (whom Aragorn kindly let go); and also there was a problem of soldiers fleeing from their posts during the Siege of Minas Tirith:

'Why? Why do the fools fly?' said Denethor. 'Better to burn sooner than late, for burn we must...'~The Siege of Gondor

Or it could just be the people expected more soldiers, when really there weren't any more.

Who is it that actually controls the military?~Kuru

Good question...it is the Lords that march in their army, and perhaps they control their own soldiers, but I think all still remained under the command of the Steward (or King). For Denethor could very well be out there leading the soldiers; he just chose not to and it was Gandalf that took over:

So it was that Gandalf took command of the last defense of the City of Gondor...~ibid

Then later Gandalf passes on this duty to Imrahil:

'You will need every man and mor,' said Gandalf. 'Make all haste. I will come when I can. But I have an errand to the Lord Denethor that will not wait. Take command in the Lord's absense!'~The Pyre of Denethor

It probably should have been Denethor:

'The first circle of the City is burning, lord,' they said. 'What are your commands? You are still the Lord and Steward. Not all will follow Mithrandir. Men are flying from the walls and leaving them unmanned.'~The Siege of Gondor

It seems like the King/Steward is the one that leads the army. When Boromir was still alive and well in Gondor he seemed to be the leader of the troops. One of his titles was the Captain-General which would kind of be like the Commander-in-Chief of the modern day. The person that led the armies into war.

Maybe it's something that depends upon the situation. A large and epic scale war such as the one's the Gondorians were facing here, it's much easier and time efficient to have one leader in charge making the decisions...and not several lords doing their own things with their armies. It's kind of like Shakespeare's Macbeth. Where there are the several nobles that have their armies and they are all brought under command of the Earl (for the life of me I can't remember the Earl's name in the story) when the armies are summoned together.

[Lalwendë]

Interesting you bring up Macbeth as the Lord High Steward/High Steward is an old Scottish title - from the first to hold the title descended the Stewart family and eventually the royal families of Scotland and the UK; the title Lord High Steward is now one held by each Prince of Wales. There was also a Lord High Steward in England and Ireland, England's being merely occasional and ceremonial as time went on and Ireland's being hereditary and still in existence. Whichever way, the Lord High Steward in any of the nations was originally a powerful figure who took on a lot of responsibility from the monarch.

So I imagine that part of Denethor's role was most definitely to muster troops, and this must have been seen as part of his responsibility to act for the absent King.

Actually, this makes me think as the assorted fiefdoms/client kingdoms (what are we calling them now?) are all descended from the Faithful of Numenor, which is similar to the Scottish clans, mostly said to be descended from a handful of mythical and semi-mythical ancestors.

[Kuruharan]

Maybe it's something that depends upon the situation. A large and epic scale war such as the one's the Gondorians were facing here, it's much easier and time efficient to have one leader in charge making the decisions...and not several lords doing their own things with their armies.

Are we supposing that the kings had greater control over the Lords?

As I said above, societies where power (in this case basically reduced to who has ultimate control over the military force) is broadly spread at the top do not generally go forth and conquer empires (at the moment I can't think of a single historical instance where such a society did so, but am open to examples).