What's this?!

[Kuruharan]

A Kuruharan topic that doesn't revolve around Dwarves?! Is he sick?!!

Well...yes, in fact he is.

Anyway, while convalescing I was thumbing through the Tale of Years and it suddenly struck me that for an allegedly feudal kingdom, Gondor seemed miraculously free of the sort of civil strife that historically beset feudal societies (particularly in Medieval Europe). There is only one major internal conflict mentioned in Gondor's history and that had more to do with genealogy than power structure. Then there is also this business about Gondor building an empire (which is not something one normally sees feudal societies able to accomplish, as the lords typically prefer to fight each other than conquer outsiders). Of course, there is the example of Arnor that broke up into pieces.

This is all a bit confusing.

Was Gondor really a feudal system? Was its feudalism something that developed after the failure of the kings? Was it something that Aragorn would try to eradicate as king?

We wonders...

[Raynor]

I don't think that Gondor revolved around fiefs and the oath elation of lord-vassal, these being among the foremost characteristics of feudalism. We do have mentionings of provinces, but these most likely are administrative regions. The cases in which oaths are involved are not relevant either - be they the oath of the stewards, or the oath of Eorl. 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.

And may I wish you a quick recovery and happy holidays

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Gondor was, in some ways, an ideal state. A descendant of Númenor, the blessed land, as much as Arnor was. The feudals of Gondor were all responsible, caring of people, serving the crown - or later, the stewardship - and there was no rivalry between them in any ways, except for these moments, when there occured something like the schizm of Rómendacil&co., which you probably had in mind. Possibly there were some troubles over local little bits of country, but they all were solved peacefully by the judgement of the higher authority (the King or steward, or just some higher rank feudal), or merely by diplomatic ways. You have to consider however, that Gondor as being raised more or less to an "ideal state" in Middle-Earth would, possibly (methinks) mean that its inhabitants were according to the Christian standards of law (as Tolkien being Christian), meaning taking authorities as granted from God (in Middle-Earth, Eru, or Valar, or whatever). This would I think very well explain how it was possible that only one big problem occured, and that it was at the moment when there someone who would have normally inherited the crown was not actually up to the standard.

[Raynor]

Indeed, in letter #156, Tolkien talks about the priest kings of the numenor, referring most likely to the gondorians too; he also states that Aragorn reinstated this double status, with the reemergence of the king's line. In Numenor too, the king had the highest role in performing "religious" ceremonies. We could also add that the Gondorians were aware of their higher status, and probably have figured that maintaining and honoring old traditions would preserve or at least slow the diminishing of their lives, of which they were so concerned (the numenorean's lives shortened the quicker they disobeyed Eru and true traditions).

[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.

[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).

[littlemanpoet]

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).

I assume you mean 'feudal' by the above description? Otherwise, the 20th century is rife with examples of democracies demolishing empires. I suppose the Crusades are a different kettle of ...... 'fish' ..... than this too....

[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.

[Kuruharan]

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.

I thought he said that Venice was a vision of Old Gondor. I thought he meant that Venice looked like Gondor. Interesting that he would say so considering that a lot of Venice's treasures were plundered from another place we've been talking about recently.

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.

It is interesting, but I've never thought of the Eorlingas as being as feudal as Gondor. Their marshals seem to almost operate on some sort of appointment basis that the king can change. Of course, this is probably an exaggerated impression brought on because of Eomer's situation in The Two Towers.

There is one interesting difference between the Rohirrim and most of the steppe peoples that would periodically sweep into Europe. The Rohirrim way of war seemed to revolve heavily around the armored charge, much like the typical Western European knight. Most of the steppe peoples revolved heavily around horse archery. While the Eorlingas are mentioned as having horse archers, it does not seem to have been a primary method of battle for them.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

There is one interesting difference between the Rohirrim and most of the steppe peoples that would periodically sweep into Europe. The Rohirrim way of war seemed to revolve heavily around the armored charge, much like the typical Western European knight. Most of the steppe peoples revolved heavily around horse archery. While the Eorlingas are mentioned as having horse archers, it does not seem to have been a primary method of battle for them.

It is my sense that Rohan is decidedly NOT feudal. The nature of rule seems rather pointedly based on historic Anglo-Saxon governing, pre-1066, obviously. It's like the reader finds in Beowulf at Héorot, intentionally by all accounts from the author himself. In fact, "Eorlingas" is apparently meant to translated, according to Tolkien, as "knight". But not a feudal knight; rather, a man, loyal to the king, who has a ring from that king, owns land, and rides into battle on his horse (at least in Rohan).

[Formendacil]

Found the Letters Bêth and I referred to. First, mine, regarding Tolkien's use of Byzantium for Gondor:

But in the north Arnor dwindles, is broken into petty princedoms, and finally vanishes. The remnant of the Númenóreans becomes a hidden wandering Folk, and though their true line of Kings of Isildur's heirs never fails this is known only in the House of Elrond. In the south Gondor rises to a peak of power, almost reflecting Númenor, and then fades slowly to decayed Middle Age, a kind of proud, venerable, but increasingly impotent Byzantium. The watch upon Mordor is relaxed. The pressure of the Easterlings and Southrons increases. The line of Kings fails, and the last city of Gondor, Minas Tirith ('Tower of Vigilance'), is ruled by hereditary Stewards. The Horsemen of the North, the Rohirrim or Riders of Rohan, taken into perpetual alliance, settle in the now unpeopled green plains that were once the northern pan of the realm of Gondor. On the great primeval forest. Greenwood the Great, east of the upper waters of the Great River, a shadow falls, and grows, and it becomes Mirkwood. The Wise discover that it proceeds from a Sorcerer ('The Necromancer' of The Hobbit) who has a secret castle in the south of the Great Wood.

--Emphasis mine, taken from Letter 131, to Milton Waldman. Some copies of the Silmarillion have this letter, in part or in whole (not sure which) as a foreward of sorts.

Bêth's reference:

Thank you very much for your letter.... It came while I was away, in Gondor (sc. Venice), as a change from the North Kingdom, or I would have answered before.

Letter 168, to Richard Jeffery. It's possible Bêth has another letter in mind, but this was the only one I found on a cursory look through.

[Kuruharan]

I just had an "Oh Duh!" moment.

The Basileia Rhomaion had chronic manpower problems that forced them to rely heavily on foreign mercenaries, particularly upon certain groups that hailed from the remote north.

I hardly need say that this parallels the relationship of Gondor to the Northmen.

[Lalwendë]

All this talk of Gondor=Venice has brought something to mind.

I think Tolkien means that Gondor the country is like Venice in its political structure - a city state controlling smaller vassals. But where does Minas Tirith remind me of? Oxford.

This is quite odd, as Oxford has its own Bridge of Sighs, which links the two parts of Hertford College over New College Lane; this in fact looks like The Rialto Bridge in Venice, not the Bridge of Sighs. Oxford is also known for its canal and rivers like Venice, and is quite a 'watery' place. Even the buildings are quite Venetian at times - the old Bodleian in particular has that ancient crumbling air to it (though it is not crumbling ), and the Sheldonian Theatre is also very Italian (and it also looks creepy to me).

It's Oxford's twisting alleys, ancient buildings and air of monumentality make me think of it as a flat Minas Tirith. The half-hidden quads also conjour up an image of Minas Tirith with hidden courtyards within buildings. And then there's the Radcliffe Camera, the neo-classical Hawksmoor designed extension to the Bodleian. This is Tolkien's inspiration for Sauron's temple to Melkor on Numenor...