Military strength and organization of Gondor

[Aldarion]

I found a piece on "Gondor and Byzantium"; cannot post a link due to spam protection, but it is called "Gondor, Byzantium and Feudalism"; Google it.

To cite a summary I wrote on another forum:
"Tolkien did not go into details on social and political structure of Gondor. Terminology he uses is definitely Western - feudal (fiefs etc.). However, closer look shows that actual structural inspiration for the system of Gondor is that of a middle Byzantine Empire. Tolkien mirrored feudal breakup of the Western Roman Empire in Arnor, which got divided into three weakening kingdoms. Arthedain was feudalistic, as king granted hobbits land in a fief of sorts, though it could also have been a foederati-like setup.

But Gondor is not a feudal society, despite Tolkien using decidedly feudal terminology. It is based on Byzantine Empire, with Gondor of the Stewards corresponding to post-7th century Roman (Byzantine) Empire. In Byzantine Empire of the time, Emperor retained full control of the bureocracy, and each province was ruled by an official (general, strategos) who, while having wide powers, could be recalled at will. Great wealth did not automatically mean high state offices, and there were cases of peasants becoming emperors through merit. Byzantine dukes and counts were military ranks, and were not inherited. While aristocracy monopolized these positions thanks to greater access to education, there was always space for talent from below, and emperor could always sack rebellious generals. Even a successful rebellion meant that a general would take a throne, rather than becoming a quasi-independent ruler as was the case in the West. Thematic troops received land in exchange for service, but land was given directly by the Emperor, who also reserved the right to withdraw the land grant. There was no subinfeudation: land was granted by the Emperor and could be taken away by the Emperor; it was not granted to feudal lord, from lord to a knight, and from knight to a tennant; there were no layers of vassals.

While fief is a feudal term, its function in Gondor is not feudal. Imrahil is Prince of Dol Amroth, not Prince of Belfalas. There appears to be no hereditary ruler of Belfalas. While Imrahil may have been a large landowner, he is primarily the strategos of Belfalas, which is a state office. And just like the men of the themes could be called onto a campaign but principally stayed to guard their own homes, so did various fiefs of Gondor only send a small portion of forces to defend the capital. There is no indication of any leader of any one of forces led to Minas Tirith having a vassal, and their territories are both fairly small and of similar size to one another. Likewise, knight is merely a general term for an armoured cavalryman. Byzantines had such cavalry - cataphracti - and in the later period they were equipped after the pattern of Western knights."

Overall, Gondorian military system resembles thematic system of Byzantine Empire. Now, onto other matters.

Byzantine Empire under thematic system had wildly different army strengths. In 820, Empire had 8 000 000 people and 120 000 men in the army. Now, surface area of Gondor is apparently 1 855 530 km2, but most of it is rather sparsely settled. This is about three times the surface area of France, and little more than area controlled by Byzantine Empire in 1025 (1 675 000 km2). Population however may have been more sparse, so I will assume 6 people per km2. This will give population of 11 million, which would then result in army of 165 000 men.

Yet Lord of the Rings implies that Gondorian army has hardly more than 20 000 - 40 000 men. Rohan is a powerful ally, yet they have only 10 000 cavalry and maybe the same number of infantry. In sum, both countries are extremely understrength militarily.

Thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 12094]

I think that the article you referred to is actually this one. Extremely interesting reading! I'd gladly recommend it.

Regarding the strength of the various forces and armies, There was a lengthy analysis in this old tread.

 

[Aldarion]

That is the one; thanks.

 

[Deleted member 12094]

Regarding Aldarion's post on these feudal aspects of the political structure of the various realms in ME, several examples show indeed how ruling kings awarded lands to deserving military leaders, or others whose contributions were meaningful:

• Cirion rewarded the Éothéod with the lands that became Rohan, after their decisive help at the battle of Celebrant.
• Beren, Steward of Gondor, let Saruman occupy Orthanc and Isengard so he could contribute to the protection against the Dunlendings.
• Elessar (Aragorn) rewarded Ghân-buri-Ghân and his folk the Forest of Drúadan.
• Elessar also awarded exclusive rights of the Shire to the hobbits and added The Westmarch, from the Far Downs to the Tower Hills, to it.
• Elessar made Faramir Prince of Ithilien and Lord of Emyn Arnen.

Clearly the Kings (or their Stewards) had full competency to decide on such important matters personally. What in our western world is routinely known as the separation of powers seems to be entirely absent in JRRT’s ME. Kings would issue laws (like no humans to enter the Shire nor the Forest of Drúadan, no strangers to enter Rohan without the King’s permission, …), assume governance of their land and administer justice, all at once.

About justice, examples are Theoden’s judgment of Gríma or Faramir (as Denethor’s delegated ruler in Ithilien) judging Frodo, Sam and Gollum. Interesting is Elessar’s judgment of Beregond; within the short course of a few sentences, he is a prosecutor, a defendant’s lawyer, a judge and a governor all at once:

• Prosecutor: “by your sword blood was spilled in the Hallows, where that is forbidden. Also you left your post without leave of Lord or of Captain. For these things, of old, death was the penalty.”
• Defendant’s lawyer: “your valour in battle, […] all that you did was for the love of the Lord Faramir.”
• Judge: “All penalty is remitted […] Nonetheless you must leave the Guard of the Citadel, and you must go forth from the City of Minas Tirith.”
• Governor: “you are appointed to the White Company, the Guard of Faramir, Prince of Ithilien, and you shall be its captain”.

In conclusion, JRRT’s vision of the role of kings in ME is one of complete absolutism. Such absolutism exists for some leaders/kings in some countries, not to be named here; however, ruling kings in democratic countries see their competencies strictly defined (and limited) by the constitution in force and their most important functions are often of a more ceremonial nature.

JRRT seems to have created such an exception of absolute ruling for the Shire. The Thain and the Mayor of Michel Delving look like such rulers:

• The Thain was the master of the Shire-moot, and captain of the Shire-muster and the Hobbitry-in-arms; but as muster and moot were only held in times of emergency, which no longer occurred, the Thainship had ceased to be more than a nominal dignity.
• The only real official in the Shire at this date was the Mayor of Michel Delving (or of the Shire), who was elected every seven years at the Free Fair on the White Downs at the Lithe, that is at Midsummer. As mayor almost his only duty was to preside at banquets, given on the Shire-holidays, which occurred at frequent intervals.

 

[Aldarion]

@Merroe I think that to understand Gondorian political system, it may be necessary to go back to the country that Gondor was modelled on - Roman Empire, specifically Byzantine period of Roman Empire. It had all elements that define Gondorian political system: divinely blessed absolutist monarch, unity and not separation of powers, union of church and state (in Gondor, King is also the Pope). However, it is far too simple to define Byzantine system as "complete absolutism", since there was the notion of responsibility and accountability to the people. Ultimately, Emperor's powers came from the people, and people routinely exercised their power to ridicule, constrain and even remove the Emperor. While the Emperor was, in theory, a supreme lawgiver, Byzantine laws were nothing more than codification of current practices, and were adjusted as practices changed. In some ways, Byzantine Empire might have been more democratic than European union today. So while political system was that of an absolute monarchy, political process or practice was that of democracy (a distinction that is today all too often lost).

This, I think, is what we see in Gondor. King has, in theory, absolute power to declare or remove the laws, and do anything he wants. In practice, however, King is constrained - by the tradition, by the divine law and, ultimately, by his own subjects. We see that when the Faithful rebel - first in secret, then openly - against the monarchs who had abandoned the Valar. Likewise, the council of Gondor had rejected Arvedui's claim to the throne of Gondor - a bad decision, maybe, but one that clearly shows that monarch was not seen as "divinely ordained".

I also remembered after writing the above that Tolkien himself said as much, even if he phrased it differently:
https://middle-earth.xenite.org/did-tolkien-use-the-divine-right-of-kings-in-middle-earth/

…A Númenórean King was monarch, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say. Aragorn re-established the Great Council of Gondor, and in that Faramir, who remained by inheritance the Steward (or representative of the King during his absence abroad, or sickness, or between his death and the accession of his heir) would [be] the chief counsellor.

Likewise, the High King of the Noldor was not an absolute monarch; neither was the king of Nargothrond:
https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/4qkzd7/of_the_noldor_at_the_first_age_and_absolute/

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

We see that when the Faithful rebel - first in secret, then openly - against the monarchs who had abandoned the Valar.

So in other words, Gondor people had something like the US 2nd amendment of constitution, such as forming milita to overthrow corrupted goverment for sure, right?

 

[Aldarion]

So in other words, Gondor people had something like the US 2nd amendment of constitution, such as forming milita to overthrow corrupted goverment for sure, right?

No. Gondor was explicitly an unconstitutional monarchy - though that doesn't mean that such a thing didn't exist as a matter of tradition. But it will not have been written down.

And whether it included outright overthrowing the government we don't know - Faithful were never strong enough to do so in any case, so thier rebellion was more "refusal to obey".

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

...But it will not have been written down....

I beg your pardon what does that mean? Are you meaning these traditions are common laws instead of statutory?

...Faithful were never strong enough to do so in any case, so thier rebellion was more "refusal to obey"....

So Kin-Strife wasn't a "Faithful Revolt" against Castamir, right?

 

[Ent]

This is what I personally see in Tolkien's Middle-earth and its 'governing' systems.

Tolkien's great love of government was for the early Feudal period (800 - 1300) and the early Monarchical period of government, (1300-1600).
The period of the Later Monarchies, starting about 1595, started seeing far more centralized government, taxation, and control (including written legislation). There were several reasons for this.

In those earlier forms of government, the people served the 'Ruler' (often a 'King') because they loved them and knew the King had their best interests in mind. The King served at the behest of the people. The underpinning thought was if the King did NOT serve the people, it was their DUTY to depose the King, and establish a new leader who worked with and for them. We have very grave misunderstandings about this period in history.

There was little taxation. The people had free will, and should they find a better King to follow, they were free to relocate. The King often granted lands to others, helping that land become productive for the people, and growing the King's 'kingdom' of available participants in the welfare of all.

When war came, the people served out of love for the King, not as 'requirement' or 'duty'. Thus, it was harder for Kings to war against one another... because the without large taxation on the people, and no 'legal written' way to extort taxes from them, the King had to fund his wars out of his own pocket, and ask for the people's willing support to go fight and die for him.

At times, the King would PROPOSE a taxation, for a defined period of time, to help fund a skirmish, or build a new road or bridge, or whatever... but that tax had to be agreed to by the people.

By and large, the people were left alone, their 'unwritten rules' (generally based on Biblical principles) their guide for life and behavior. The King simply didn't interfere.

This is the kind of government Tolkien attempts to display throughout M-e. There is nothing we see displayed not fitting into this basic construct.

The only fully tyrannical government Tolkien infuses is Melkor's effort to control everything, and then Sauron's... where people's very lives and being are subjugated to their whims. Some of the Orc clans distant from Sauron may come close, but we really see very little of their 'government,' though we know they're expected to assist at his beck and call.

Even some of the clans of Men serving Sauron were their own separate system, serving only because they felt it in their best interest to do so.

In the real world since the beginning of the later Monarchies and then the "Renaissance", aptly named because it 'brought back again' the great tyranny, centralized control, and corruption of the Roman system, there has not been a government developed allowing its people real 'freedom.' Even the "democracy" of the United States is simply a well-devised tyranny, ever more centralizing, seizing control from the people, taxing outlandishly, and regulating into every facet of people's lives.

Tolkien knew this was the state of the whole world, saw it increasing in his own country and its growth and hold into the future of the whole world, was why he was 'anti-industrialization,' and purposely wrote of a very different world called Middle-earth, one where some people were truly still free to choose on their own how they would live and who they would call their rulers. Yet he included at the same time the battling against tyranny and centralization trying to seize their lives in its unhealthy grasp.

We see Tolkien displaying the battle of the past, vs. the future, in the governmental systems displayed.

 

[Aldarion]

I beg your pardon what does that mean? Are you meaning these traditions are common laws instead of statutory?

Yes.

So Kin-Strife wasn't a "Faithful Revolt" against Castamir, right?

Correct.

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

..In those earlier forms of government, the people served the 'Ruler' (often a 'King') because they loved them and knew the King had their best interests in mind. The King served at the behest of the people. The underpinning thought was if the King did NOT serve the people, it was their DUTY to depose the King, and establish a new leader who worked with and for them. We have very grave misunderstandings about this period in history...

I beg your pardon that how the kings knew he's loved or not, such as voting, poll check via disgiusing, and so on. In addition, I wonder what're the ways to depose the rulers, via legal and armed revolt? If that's so, then why some false kings and queens still sitted their throne, doing nothing but wasting their kingdoms' blood in spite of their absurd performance, such as Tar-Ancarlime?

..By and large, the people were left alone, their 'unwritten rules' (generally based on Biblical principles) their guide for life and behavior...

Sorry, then won't it become ambigious to judical affiars? After all, spirit and letters of the laws are always not the same.

 

[Ent]

Tar-Ancarlime

Tar-Ancarlime rose to the throne for the first time in M-e history based on new 'written law' by her father, given the circumstances they were in at the time. Prior to that time, succession was always a matter of unwritten 'customary law'. And, following, after the downfall of Númenor, when there were questions about succession, the matter was submitted to council when there were differences of opinion, the council evaluating who had the 'superior claim' to the succession.

This is very much the feudal and early monarchical way of our 'real' history, 800-early 1500s.

Naturally, there arose the occasional person who tried to become 'more and greater' - it is in the nature of Man and Tolkien faithfully depicted it. But both the people and the Church applied great pressure against the one trying to become a tyrant... and yes, there were many 'uprisings' by the people against the King who was ruling for his own benefit, rather than serving the people. The Church also fostered this - and it is from this 'custom' - i.e. it is the people's DUTY to depose a tyrant - such uprisings were fostered.

Of course - in the early feudal and monarchical systems, since the King was dependent on his people, and they were dependent on him, and 'taxation' was not allowed unless the people approved, he could not simply sweep in with a big army and enforce his will. He HAD no army... those armies were willing people supporting him when he had time of need... and if he were being tyrannical, they simply were not willing.

Therefore, he had to fund any actions out of his own pocket... try to find a bunch of mercenaries willing to die for a bit of cash.... and enforce his position.
Did not work well.
Also those coming under 'tyranny' of such kind often just moved to support another 'ruler', and they were welcomed, as the ruler profited from them, as well as they from him.

So in Tolkien's works we find virtually every form of government represented in one way or another.
But the predominant flavor of the 'free peoples' has a tendency to demonstrate the Feudal/early Monarchical format. Especially of course, the Shire.
But even Gondor and Rohan are examples of the people serving their kings out of love, willingly... though both had moved toward later monarchical tendencies, with standing armies and such... NOT because they were out to usurp others' rights under tyranny, but because it was necessary to protect themselves from those who were trying to take away their own rights and freedoms.

Should the peoples not have liked it where they were, they were more than free to go serve someone else they preferred.

The feudal and early Monarchical concepts of government are very hard for us to grasp today, because nothing of its kind has existed in the world since the 1600s and the Renaissance, when the Roman corruption was returned to being the standard fare of government. We simply cannot conceive of a system where people really care about and for one another, leave things to a higher law rather than man-made interference, and espouse and live by Choice and Freedom.

Did even the feudal systems have the occasional tyrant etc. needing to be dealt with? You bet. A couple became a very large plague to freedom during their times. But by and large we have a very distorted view of how those times really 'worked'. Why? Because history is written by the 'winners' in conflict... each and every time... and anything contrary to the 'winning view' is altered, suppressed, and stamped out, lest a return to 'better times and greater individual freedom' should result.

One needs to explore things very closely to sort through the muck and get to the truth. And then determine WHY the changes happening, happened. One will be very surprised, when one does, because much of what we have been 'told' is not what really 'was'... no, not at all.

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

Just another extended idea flashed opun my mind, joint warfare of different Gondor Military branch, whether it's between Gondor Marines, milita of each province, and so on. For instances, Each autonomy, and even province(or state?) obviously had theirown milita, and even standing armies(like Dol-Amroth), in other words,apart from potential mutinies, joint warfare must be a challengeas they got different command system, and even worse, culture barriers such as dialects(Even though Westrons had been their official language, yet warefare terms must be mastered by every personnel, everyone of you homies who once served in the military must figured out what I mean.), authority clashes would also might be a challenges since many military personnel from Gondor might come from different...states?
What do you homies think?
@Aldarion Just consider my offer about your article