What's this?!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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).

Following lmp's response I'm now confused. Do you mean conquering empires as in beating those empires, as lmp has interpreted or do you mean as in gaining and adding to, creating empires?

If it's the latter then the British Empire was created under democracy, albeit extremely limited democracy; either way, there was a considerable bearaucracy (I bet I've spelled that wrong again, I might stick to 'executive decision making process' in future) to be got through before wars and campaigns could happen - not just Parliament but also the Lords and the Admiralty etc. Not only that but some regiments were virtually laws unto themselves. Just to get a flavour of the machinations it's worth watching Sharpe!

[Kuruharan]

Otherwise, the 20th century is rife with examples of democracies demolishing empires.

Those democracies had centralized control over their militaries.

When I say "feudal" mean a situation where military service is promised by one entity (the vassal) to another entity (the lord) in exchange for something, conventionally in the Western useage this meant land. This added a layer of middle management to the military structure that (in many cases) was not responsive to the commands, requests, or timid pleas of the supposed lord. This problem tends to get particularly acute at the highest levels of this middle layer because those individuals are virtually sovereigns themselves (and in some cases are) and have the resources to successfully challenge their titular superior. Such individuals (historically) seemed more interested in bashing each other or trying to overthrow or break away from their supposed sovereign. This is not a recipe for successful empire building of the type Gondor engaged in.

I guess the factor I'm most interested in determining is where the ultimate loyalty of the soldiers lay. If all of them took their oaths to the King/Steward then (theoretically at least) their ultimate loyalty lay with the ruler. If not, then their ultimate loyalty probably lay with their local lord.

I hope I was able to clarify Lalwende's question as well.

[littlemanpoet]

Based on your clear description of feudalism, which I find to be accurate, and your accurate description of how things worked most of the time in medieval Europe, it begins to seem as if a better analogy to Gondor would be Byzantium instead of the Holy Roman Empire or some other. That is, the King of Gondor seemed to be pretty largely acknowledged as such, and the lords of Dol Amroth and other parts of Gondor, seem to have acknowledged the King's rulership without the various burdens of feudalism.

[Kuruharan]

it begins to seem as if a better analogy to Gondor would be Byzantium instead of the Holy Roman Empire or some other

Hmmm...very interesting. There are a number of parallels: remains of older highly regarded culture, situated between the West and the East, and there are certainly some similarities between the governmental structures (although I think Gondor has the appearance of being a little more "feudal")

...and I'll be using the term "Basileia Rhomaion." I'm on a personal crusade to get the word "Byzantium" stamped out as a historical descriptor. It is a tall order, but I am a stubborn dwarf.

[Formendacil]

Indeed, as I noted on some other thread lately, which escapes me entirely, Tolkien himself referred to Gondor as a "Byzantium". It's somewhere in his Letters, I believe, a lack of the Letters and the late hour making me rather vague as to where precisely. But that he made the same connection I am quite certain.

[Bêthberry]

Yet interestingly there is another geographical reference, the source of which eludes me for the same reasons Formy gave in his post. It's in the Letters.

Tolkien admitted that Gondor is at a similar lattitude to Venice I believe it was. Perhaps what is implied here is a form of city state similar to what pertained in the region we now call Italy. Not an empire model per se, but spheres of influence centred in a city. City states are historically known for instituting informal, diplomatically-inspired, alliances for trade rather than martial conquest.

[littlemanpoet]

Since we can find such strong correlations between Gondor and "Basiliae Rhomaion", it occurs to me that the Eorlingas deserve another look as well. Tolkien gave the Eorlingas the Anglo-Saxon language and culture, but he said that it was not really what they spoke (nor, perhaps, necessarily accurate in terms of their culture). We know that Anglo-Saxons were not nearly the horse-culture that the Eorlingas were. However, we do know that on the Russian Steppes there dwelt for many centuries Indo-European migrating tribes who periodically swept into more populated and developed cultural regions, such as the Middle East and India, and became lords in those lands for a while.

Obviously, Tolkien does not have the Eorlingas take over Gondor, for purposes of his own within the history of Middle Earth, but I can see a lot in the Eorlingas that are held in common with the Sakas, Sarmatians, Cimmerians, Aryans, (early) Medes, Parthians, and so forth. I'm left with the notion that Tolkien seems to have combined primary strains from both the Anglo-Saxons and the Indo-Europeans of the Russian Steppes.