• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Tax policy of Gondor

Aldarion

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
983
https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/09/21/tax-policy-of-gondor/

As can be seen from military organization, Gondor is in fact a centralized monarchy in the vein of Byzantine Empire. It remained a fairly centralized monarchy, with not a trace of feudalism to be seen. History is also similar: where Arnor fell apart into multiple kingdoms (echoing both barbarization of Western Roman Empire, and later division of Carolingian Empire into three kingdoms), Gondor endured. Much like Byzantium, part of reason for its endurance was that it was much less exposed: whereas Arnor had no major physical barriers between its core lands and Angmar, Gondor’s core lands were protected from Mordor by Anduin, and from wild men by the White Mountains. Similarly, Eastern Empire had its core lands protected by the Danube, Black Sea, and Taurus / Antitaurus ranges; and while Danube ultimately proved permeable, Bosphorus protected Anatolia.
 
Good analysis, in addition, there're further discussions can be explored, such as taxes's evasion(one of the destructive reasons that destroyed the eastern romans), possibly handeled by Rangers Of Ithilein(as they're under the direct command of Steward as politically neutral).
Even though disparity of wealth caused by lands annextion and unfair salaries might be neglected as the ruler class of Gondor based their power by the support of ME natives, oppositing the King's Men, meaning that all kinds of social justice was well-done, yet reasons led to evasion might still exist. One of the biggest problems might be declaration dutiable goods, often connected with properties report of officials. Seriously, how Gondor central goverment prevented local governors from making fake properties report, or escaping taxes by transffering their taxes into public items such as under the names of goverments. Castamir's Uprising might be a case of such lesson, as he's not a civil but military official, yet the finicial system such as tracks of funds obviously wasn't transparent enough during that period, otherwise how he got enough funds.
I hope this helps further discussion.
 
Castamir's Uprising might be a case of such lesson, as he's not a civil but military official, yet the finicial system such as tracks of funds obviously wasn't transparent enough during that period, otherwise how he got enough funds.
In Roman Empire until Diocletian as well as Byzantine Empire post-640s, military governors were also civilian governors, as it made the system more streamlined, responsive and efficient.

So it is entirely possible he was both.
 
In Roman Empire until Diocletian as well as Byzantine Empire post-640s, military governors were also civilian governors, as it made the system more streamlined, responsive and efficient.
Correct me if I'm wrong, thus the "thema system" didn't mix civic and military system together yet just making local military perssonel paid via lands instead, right?
In addition, as naval officers, Castamir wasn't supposed to be the preffered canditates for militant governors as most of the naval personnel's active area weren't on ground, meaning that it's far better to appoint army(or marines) officials to handle militant goverment, such as Mac Arthur to Phillipin, Japan's governors at Taiwan, or UK's governors at their colonies. These colonies governors, correct me if I'm wrong, mostly were Army backround.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, thus the "thema system" didn't mix civic and military system together yet just making local military perssonel paid via lands instead, right?
No, what I meant is that governors of themes were also civilian governors. It was Dioclecianic system that separated military from civilian governance, and theme system again reunited it.
In addition, as naval officers, Castamir wasn't supposed to be the preffered canditates for militant governors as most of the naval personnel's active area weren't on ground, meaning that it's far better to appoint army(or marines) officials to handle militant goverment, such as Mac Arthur to Phillipin, Japan's governors at Taiwan, or UK's governors at their colonies. These colonies governors, correct me if I'm wrong, mostly were Army backround.
True, but Byzantine Empire didi have at least one, and perhaps multiple, "naval" themes.

But we really have no information on Gondor's administration during Castamir's time, and no reason to assume that it was the same as what we see in Lord of the Rings. So what I said was just wild guessimating.
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top