# Funding the Kingdom



## Orin (Dec 8, 2001)

Here's a flight of fancy for your that is purely acedemic. How did(would) Aragorn fund his Kingdom? Did (would) he extact tribute from those powers in the realm such as Rohan and Umbar? Or would the subjects be taxed? And to what extent was the feudal nature of the Kingdom? Would it have been a Commonwealth of independent Kingdoms and Principalities, all swearing allegience to the King in Gondor? Aragorn, benevolent as he may be, is still a divine right despot with an immense kingdom to govern and maintain. I just wonder how he would run it. Why do I think of these things? I need another hobby.....


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 8, 2001)

I doubt very much that Rohan would be laid under tribute though Umbar probably would. The people under the protection of the crown of Gondor and the Septor of Arnor I expect would have to pay Taxes. This would not mean that all the kingdoms and principalities that swore alliegence to Gondor would have to pay taxes to the crown as such oaths of fealty may only include help in time of need and friendship at other times. Any taxes paid in the individual Kingdoms and Principalities probably would be used internaly.

I do not think that Gondor was Feudal in nature though it was probably socialy structured with a working class, a middle (trading) class and an Upper (nobility) class with lazy good-for-nothings sprinkled throughout. This is the format that all countries without feudalism or a dictatorship use.


----------



## Courtney (Dec 26, 2001)

i thought they didn't have taxes in ME. I thought it was a happy place where hobbits and men alike could share in the beauty of the world.or whatever...


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 26, 2001)

Don't forget things have to be paid for and War is a VERY taxing time for Governments and Peacetime is JUST as bad.


----------



## Courtney (Dec 27, 2001)

what was that movie where all the media and people made everyone think that there was a war so the economy would improve? or something like that. That was hilarious.


----------



## Orin (Dec 27, 2001)

Wag the Dog?


----------



## Courtney (Dec 27, 2001)

yep that's it. Good movie


----------



## Ståle (Dec 28, 2001)

War ain't that costly. I mean, it seems like Eòmer and Aragorn can just say: "We go to war. Meet in 15 minutes" and everyone does it. Might cost a bit to make weapons though.


----------



## Courtney (Dec 28, 2001)

Yeah, it's not like they have any really expensive weapons otherwise they'd have just nuked Sauron and got it over with.


----------



## Orin (Dec 30, 2001)

*War isn't too costly?*

Weapons are the small cost of war. Food, clothing, transportation, food for the transportation, wages, and other logistical concerns for an army, even at peace, would require vast sums of money. Also consider the cleanup and reconstruction from the war. also, the high-grade fertilizer needed for the White Tree........


----------



## Courtney (Dec 31, 2001)

What kind of money did they have in Gondor? I don't remember it ever mentioned. Did they have money or did they just trade? It would be difficult to have such a high level of society without money.


----------



## Ståle (Jan 1, 2002)

Well, I seem to recall some money beeing mentioned as the Hobbits leave Bree. Probably a remaint of the Kingdom of Arnor. Else, most things seem to go mostly by trade.


----------



## Courtney (Jan 2, 2002)

So if they had taxes, would they collect food from the farmers, weapons from blacksmiths, and stuff like that? That would make things more difficult.


----------



## Gandalf714 (Jan 14, 2002)

They obviously had money, Butterbur pays pippin 30 silver pennies for his lost ponies, and 12 more to bill ferney for the pony "Bill". Plus Frodo said he didn't bring enough money to satisfy a scoundrel. If you remember Gandalf talking about Moria he says they could get anything they need in trade with mithrel.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 4, 2005)

*bump*

Since Tolkien was a anarchist would he have favoured voluntary rather than coercive taxation? We are not given a overtly-accurate description of Middle-Earth's economy, and although feudalism did not exist in the West as it did in Europe (i.e serfdom) I presume there was as wide a chasm between wealthy and poor hobbits as there was between wealthy men and poor men. Look at the discriptions of various Hobbit houses and the men who entered Minas Tirith, some grand and some poor, some noble and some grim. A industrial economy had yet to develop in Middle-Earth yet, of course.


----------



## Hammersmith (May 6, 2005)

I see it as more of a pure Feudalism, where the nobility actually did something (ie: fight) as a knight warrior class owning the majority of the land, which was then taxed. No basis for it, just a feeling.

The Shire seems to be rather corrupt, with a 19th Century British democracy going on; highly class oriented with only a semblence of true democracy (The Mayor) who is enforced by his Shiriff gang of toughs. The lower classes such as Sam are uneducated to the point where they blindly follow the nobility. Sam becomes mayor only due to his celebrity, and is in my mind a puppet governor when he takes office, possibly controlled by the S-Bs. Frodo is the perfect image of a landed country gentleman, surviving on an inherited fortune, following in his predecessor's footprints with madcap adventures, the quintessential eccentric lord.

I'm too cynical for this world, but it does make sense.


----------



## Eledhwen (May 6, 2005)

I think of it being more like tithing. Some of the old tithe barns still exist in England, where people would leave 10% of their produce to support the living and work of the local abbey or monastery - until ol' Enery ushered in a change of management.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 10, 2005)

> I see it as more of a pure Feudalism, where the nobility actually did something (ie: fight) as a knight warrior class owning the majority of the land, which was then taxed. No basis for it, just a feeling.
> 
> The Shire seems to be rather corrupt, with a 19th Century British democracy going on; highly class oriented with only a semblence of true democracy (The Mayor) who is enforced by his Shiriff gang of toughs. The lower classes such as Sam are uneducated to the point where they blindly follow the nobility. Sam becomes mayor only due to his celebrity, and is in my mind a puppet governor when he takes office, possibly controlled by the S-Bs. Frodo is the perfect image of a landed country gentleman, surviving on an inherited fortune



The Shirrifs consisted of 12 officers, 12 officers plus the mayor is something of a oligarchy as you may point out, but any such point is a fallacy because they didn't have enough power to become oligarchs. Oligarchs need a power base, and they didn't have one, in fact Tolkien writes that their main job was to keep a check on the animals and make sure they didn't wonder astray!

I think you are diverging from the nature of Tolkien’s politics, which are reflected in the politics (or lack of thereof) of the Shire. There is no state, or rather there is a extremely limited state, ergo the Hobbits are free from arbitrary or coercive authority and the authorities would only step in when the actions of a person were negatively affecting others. The Mayor was exactly that-he was a steward rather than an enforcer. He of course had greater _power_ than the other Hobbits, but power is not alone the base for coercion, one needs to have a desire for coercion as well as the means to bring about that coercion, and it seems that by and large the Mayors and the Shirrifs had little desire to impose their authority on others-until their authority was taken up by the wrong people, who desired _power._ Also the issue of _power_ is a ambigious one here, I don't think the Shirrifs could have physically forced anyone to comply with their will unless they had the backing of the people, therefore ensuring the power of the Shirrifs was based in the people, who by turn elected the mayor. 



The mayor was of course elected (by all the Hobbits in the Shire?) but there were several great families who had as much influence as him, so there were several power bases within the Shire in case one got overly-powerful.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 10, 2005)

Orin said:


> Here's a flight of fancy for your that is purely acedemic. How did(would) Aragorn fund his Kingdom?



Easy: I would get royal permission to start Prancing Pony _franchises_ (including local delivery service) all over Middle-earth (hobbit-sized ones for The Shire), and part of the proceeds would go to King Elessar. 

Barley


----------



## Arvegil (May 13, 2005)

In "The New Shadow," reference is made to Gondor having a significant merchant fleet in the Fourth Age. Like all good monarchs, Aragorn would take his cut out of the foreign trade, for starters.


----------



## scotsboyuk (May 13, 2005)

By the looks of things Gondor had a standing army, which isn't a terribly feudal arrangement. Gondor also looks to be somewhat more urbanised than, for example, Rohan. I would imagine that Gondor would probably correspond more to Tudor or Stuart England in terms of its economy.

Rohan is very much modelled on an Anglo-Saxon system, although perhaps the Anglo-Saxons as they might have been if not for the Normans. Their army is raised from the people in times of war except for a core band of dedicated warriors who serve the Royal Family directly.

The main source of revenue no doubt comes from that old dependable, taxation. As they say, there are only two certainties in life, death and taxes.


----------



## Hammersmith (May 15, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> The Shirrifs consisted of 12 officers, 12 officers plus the mayor is something of a oligarchy as you may point out, but any such point is a fallacy because they didn't have enough power to become oligarchs. Oligarchs need a power base, and they didn't have one, in fact Tolkien writes that their main job was to keep a check on the animals and make sure they didn't wonder astray!
> 
> I think you are diverging from the nature of Tolkien’s politics, which are reflected in the politics (or lack of thereof) of the Shire. There is no state, or rather there is a extremely limited state, ergo the Hobbits are free from arbitrary or coercive authority and the authorities would only step in when the actions of a person were negatively affecting others. The Mayor was exactly that-he was a steward rather than an enforcer. He of course had greater _power_ than the other Hobbits, but power is not alone the base for coercion, one needs to have a desire for coercion as well as the means to bring about that coercion, and it seems that by and large the Mayors and the Shirrifs had little desire to impose their authority on others-until their authority was taken up by the wrong people, who desired _power._ Also the issue of _power_ is a ambigious one here, I don't think the Shirrifs could have physically forced anyone to comply with their will unless they had the backing of the people, therefore ensuring the power of the Shirrifs was based in the people, who by turn elected the mayor.
> 
> ...


 
Ah, but a corrupt mayor (such as Lotho) could theoretically move the shire down a much more Feudal path. Admittedly he had outside help, but so do all arch villains; William the Conquerer had his Norman knights, King Charles had his Cornish pikemen, Hrothgar had Beowulf  
Lotho had Saruman, which was probably a mistake on his part, but there we go. Like I said, my response was driven by cynicism more than anything else.


----------



## scotsboyuk (May 15, 2005)

@Hammersmith

William the Conqueror an arch-villain? That's one in the eye for him! (Sorry, I know it's a terrible joke, but hey ho!)


----------



## Eledhwen (May 15, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> Ah, but a corrupt mayor (such as Lotho) could theoretically move the shire down a much more Feudal path. Admittedly he had outside help, but so do all arch villains; William the Conquerer had his Norman knights, King Charles had his Cornish pikemen, Hrothgar had Beowulf
> Lotho had Saruman, which was probably a mistake on his part, but there we go. Like I said, my response was driven by cynicism more than anything else.


I see Lotho and Saruman rather as a scaled down version of Saruman and Sauron. Lotho thought that if he let Sharkey in, it would help him to be 'The Chief'; but the real Chief had no intention of sharing power. This echoes Saruman's decision to ally himself with Sauron. Only whereas the little cheese Saruman escaped punishment in the end thanks to the mercy of Gandalf, he showed the sort of mercy to Lotho that he himself could have expected from Sauron; and because of his boasting about using Wormtongue to bring about Lotho's end, he himself was killed. It is usually a mistake to accept outside help from a more powerful outsider when your aims are evil.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 15, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> I see Lotho and Saruman rather as a scaled down version of Saruman and Sauron.



I agree, and I have noticed that certain plotlines repeat themselves in Tolkien. I'm not certain what metaphors to use in describing them: arcs, miniatures, nested plots... For instance:

• The Hobbit as a miniature of LOTR in its general plot, or, LOTR as an expanded form of The Hobbit.

• The Scouring of the Shire as a miniature of LOTR

Responses, reactions?

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (May 15, 2005)

> Lotho had Saruman, which was probably a mistake on his part, but there we go. Like I said, my response was driven by cynicism more than anything else.



You are indeed a cynical fellow! Besides, that could happen to any state or society.


----------



## Starbrow (May 15, 2005)

Barley, could you please explain how the Scouring of the Shire resembles the plot of LOTR?

Thanx.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 17, 2005)

An interesting quote...



> As far as I know Hobbits were universally monogamous (indeed they very seldom married a second time, even if wife or husband died very young); and I should say that their family arrangements were 'patrilinear' rather than patriarchal. That is, their family names descended in the male-line (and women were adopted into their husband's name); also the titular head of the family was usually the eldest male. In the case of large powerful families (such as the Tooks), still cohesive even when they had become very numerous, and more what we might call clans, the head was properly the eldest male of what was considered the most direct line of descent. But the government of a 'family', as of the real unit: the 'household', was not a monarchy (except by accident). It was a 'dyarchy', in which master and mistress had equal status, if different functions. Either was held to be the proper representative of the other in the case of absence (including death). There were no 'dowagers'. If the master died first, his place was taken by his wife, and this included (if he had held that position) the titular headship of a large family or clan. This title thus did not descend to the son, or other heir, while she lived, unless she voluntarily resigned. It could, therefore, happen in various circumstances that a long-lived woman of forceful character remained 'head of the family', until she had full-grown grandchildren


----------



## scotsboyuk (May 18, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> An interesting quote...


 
Indeed; one can see some similarities between Hobbits, as described in that quotation, and the Anglo-Saxons.


----------



## Eledhwen (May 18, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I agree, and I have noticed that certain plotlines repeat themselves in Tolkien. I'm not certain what metaphors to use in describing them: arcs, miniatures, nested plots... For instance:
> 
> • The Hobbit as a miniature of LOTR in its general plot, or, LOTR as an expanded form of The Hobbit.
> 
> ...


If you look even wider, there are other nested plots (I like that phrase), such as the Arkenstone as a type of Silmaril. I'm sure there are others too (though I can't think of any at the moment).


----------



## Halasían (Jul 24, 2020)

An interesting aside to this is the cost of infrastructure rebuilding in the new united kingdom. What would be the kingdom's tax base vs the cost of such public works sich as rebuilding roads ... taking the ruined Bridge of Tharbad for example. What would the economy of Aragorn's and Eldorian's kingdom be like?


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Jul 25, 2020)

Halasían said:


> An interesting aside to this is the cost of infrastructure rebuilding in the new united kingdom. What would be the kingdom's tax base vs the cost of such public works sich as rebuilding roads ... taking the ruined Bridge of Tharbad for example. What would the economy of Aragorn's and Eldorian's kingdom be like?



I’m afraid your thought is unlikely to receive a detailed or well-informed answer Halasían: TH and LotR hardly ever mentioned aspects of trade and finance apart from an occasional reference to some unspecified coins or some trade routes.

Following the war Gondor might have counted on some tribute from defeated people from South and East, or from Dunlendings, such as Squint-eyed Southerner.  😄

Maybe also, treasures stashed in the Paths of the Dead became accessible following the disappearance of the “undead” (along with an easy trade passage between Gondor and Rohan on which to levy toll, should the tunnel ever have become more “cheerful”).

However, and looking back: how did e.g. Denethor (and the stewards before him) finance his own household before, including servants, guards and armies, buildings and tools, the Houses of Healing, and what else? No indications ... same goes for Rohan, too.

How JRRT imagined state finances in his vast imaginary world is largely unknown, I think, because it probably was not a point of interest for him.


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 25, 2020)

Merroe said:


> ...
> How JRRT imagined state finances in his vast imaginary world is largely unknown, I think, because it probably was not a point of interest for him.


The finances of not just imaginary worlds have one serious "infection" problem.
Every, and I really men *E V E R Y* form of rule that has ever been tried in history has inevitably attracted (influential) parasites. Critters suffering from the larger surface variants tend to try and deal with them with their incisor teeth and claws on rear extremities (think of one of your dog's rear legs approaching ventilator speed - that's where the can't reach with their incisors; I've seen squirrels doing it from my balcony - and oh boy, their back legs do *reach* ventilator speed!).
In human societies, the main if not sole life effort of parasites is to make sure that the "executive branch" prevents any equivalent of incisors or whirling claws ever getting near them - while the promotion and not prevention of such pest control would actually be the sole internal duty of any executive branch.


----------



## Aldarion (Jul 27, 2020)

Orin said:


> Here's a flight of fancy for your that is purely acedemic. How did(would) Aragorn fund his Kingdom? Did (would) he extact tribute from those powers in the realm such as Rohan and Umbar? Or would the subjects be taxed? And to what extent was the feudal nature of the Kingdom? Would it have been a Commonwealth of independent Kingdoms and Principalities, all swearing allegience to the King in Gondor? Aragorn, benevolent as he may be, is still a divine right despot with an immense kingdom to govern and maintain. I just wonder how he would run it. Why do I think of these things? I need another hobby.....



Gondor is based on Middle Byzantine Empire. Both its government and military are based on Byzantine theme system, which suggests that Gondor in fact has relatively centralized government and extensive tax arrangements similar to Byzantine Empire. So:
1) populace of Gondor itself would be taxed
2) Umbar would definitely send tribute; Rohan would not as it is an ally, not a vassal
3) Gondor is not feudal *at all*
4) There will be a network of vassal states and principalities... whether you can call that a Commonwealth...



Halasían said:


> An interesting aside to this is the cost of infrastructure rebuilding in the new united kingdom. What would be the kingdom's tax base vs the cost of such public works sich as rebuilding roads ... taking the ruined Bridge of Tharbad for example. What would the economy of Aragorn's and Eldorian's kingdom be like?



What is interesting is that Gondor likely has very good tax base. As I have explained in my answer to ancient OP, Gondor would have highly sophisticated tax system. But there is also the fact of Gondor's physical location, which I think cannot be overstated: it controls the mouth of Anduin and thus all trade routes connected to it, and unless everybody has ocean-going ships Gondor would also control at least some of coastal trade routes going to Rohan (through Anduin or Isen) and Arnor.



Merroe said:


> I’m afraid your thought is unlikely to receive a detailed or well-informed answer Halasían: TH and LotR hardly ever mentioned aspects of trade and finance apart from an occasional reference to some unspecified coins or some trade routes.
> 
> Following the war Gondor might have counted on some tribute from defeated people from South and East, or from Dunlendings, such as Squint-eyed Southerner.  😄
> 
> ...



Middle Byzantine Empire, specifically in 7th and 8th century, is a good model to use here. Gondor is in fact based on it; just take a look:
1) relatively centralized government (no feudalism)
2) highly militarized garrison state under constant multiple-century siege
3) relatively decentralized provincial army organization
4) remnant of a highly sophisticated and socially advanced empire (Roman Empire / Numenor and Early Byzantine Empire / pre-territorial-losses Gondor).

So what does this mean?
1) main source of income would be farming and taxation of farmers
1.1) main form of taxation would be land tax and head tax
2) trade would be relatively limited, but still a potentially significant source of income
2.1) significance of trade would increase sharply after defeat of Sauron
3) soldiers may get tax benefits but would _not _be tax-exempt

You may read this for a quick overview:








The Economy of the Byzantine Empire


The Byzantine Empire, that is the Eastern Roman Empire, lasted quite a long time; from 284 (first division of the Roman Empire) to 1453…




medium.com


----------



## Halasían (Jul 27, 2020)

Merroe said:


> I’m afraid your thought is unlikely to receive a detailed or well-informed answer Halasían: TH and LotR hardly ever mentioned aspects of trade and finance apart from an occasional reference to some unspecified coins or some trade routes.



The above post by Aldorion is precisely why I necro-bump some of these old topic discussions. 





Aldarion said:


> Middle Byzantine Empire, specifically in 7th and 8th century, is a good model to use here. Gondor is _in fact_ based on it;


I'm curious what source you are using to say that Tolkien had 'in fact' based Gondor on the Middle Byzantine Empire?


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Jul 27, 2020)

Halasían said:


> I'm curious what source you are using to say that Tolkien had 'in fact' based Gondor on the Middle Byzantine Empire?


@Aldarion post about Gondor military has mentioned JRRT's description to Gondor's military, for instance, the Dol-Amorth Kataphracts in return of the king, is much more similar as standing army, just take much more details, you'll find they got no independent logistic system, cause they're all merely combat personnel. And if a province so independent ruled by prince can be so obedient to the central government, then it goes without saying the others. Hope my answer help^^

@Aldarion , in fact even well-centralized empires like Byzantines will rely on stuff like "diplomatic tribute" a lot, of course not direct tributes like gold or factual materials, yet in a much more advanced way such as taxes, military service, and even commercial privilege.
For instance, Rus's and Armenian obligation to provide military combat personnel to secure international trade roads, Serbia's taxes, as well as all those trade customs roads pass via Constantinople.
These sources of economic income rely on not only Byzantine but also other states independent sovereign in theory, though most of times these sources are "maintained" by Byzantine's military power in fact. (A bit like USA will give you freedom in now days) XDDDD

And this comes to the debate that Gondor is a Thalassocracy or a ground-dominant empire. Thalassocracies like UK and Holland, will rely on such "tribute" much more in comparison with ground-dominant empires, such as USA(before WWII), Germany, and Russia. Cause for the former, taking direct control for territory is much more costly and uneconomic in comparison with the latter, "tributes" might be a much wiser decision in comparison with direct taxes.

I'm not sure JRRT did add U.K. empire elements into Gondor or not, yet it's obvious at least it's ancestor, the Numenor empire is a a bit similar with the British empire in 19th century. We can get this conclusion according to the possible revolts launched by the Faithfuls and ME natives in ME, so powerful that even Sauron couldn't overcome them even if he became the Imperial prime minister. Does it look like Australia's or even USA's actions to UK?

As a colonial home country, "tributes" might be a life-holding source of economic. As Gondor military expansion seldom ended, we might guess it's been a colonial empire. Of course we can assume that Gondor's policies weren't Thalassocracies-like, making the conclusion that their economic system was much similar with the so-called ground-dominant empires, after all we all knew that Gondor's territory was once horribly huge. Yet if we take the Byzantine elements into account, I'd say Gondor used the British-like style to rule those conquered lands. As an result, Thalassocracies-like economic system might be a more possible option.

What do you think?^^


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Jul 27, 2020)

Halasían said:


> I'm curious what source you are using to say that Tolkien had 'in fact' based Gondor on the Middle Byzantine Empire?



So am I. No offense meant, but I hold this for speculation and the fact that it's repeated in every second message does not make this more true.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jul 27, 2020)

Courtney said:


> i thought they didn't have taxes in ME. I thought it was a happy place where hobbits and men alike could share in the beauty of the world.or whatever...


Kings are expensive, and unproductive. So are their retainers, other sundry pen-pushers and armies. Unless said armies are permanently invading, pillaging and plundering, someone's got to pay to feed them ... and the king. I would expect Aragorn to demand a Tithe (a tenth) of all produce or its equivalent value in tax. It's what The Church did before Henry VIIIth popped their bubble; there are still tithe barns in England that were once used to store all this stuff.


----------



## Aldarion (Jul 27, 2020)

Halasían said:


> I'm curious what source you are using to say that Tolkien had 'in fact' based Gondor on the Middle Byzantine Empire?



I wrote about it here:








Military organization of Gondor


There is not much detail regarding military structure and organization of Gondor in Lord of the Rings, as Tolkien set out to write an epic, not a history book. Yet a lot can be gleamed about it fro…




militaryfantasy.home.blog





Aside from organizational (governmental and military) similarities, there is also its history:
1) Arnor and Gondor are remnants of a larger Empire (Numenor / Roman Empire), so Arnor = Frankish Empire, Gondor = Byzantine Empire
2) Arnor split into three kingdoms just like Frankish Empire (Arnor = Cardolan, Rhuadur, Arthedain; Frankish Empire = Western (France), Middle (bunch), Eastern (Germany).
3) Gondor had a bunch of civil wars (but nothing like Byzantines, who had civil wars as regularly as we have elections - in fact, their civil wars _were_ elections)
4) both had periods when they were dominant naval powers, but were usually land-focused
5) both had secret superweapons (Greek Fire for Byzantine Empire, and I personally believe that Sauron got his incendiary projectiles from Numenor or even Gondor)



Hisoka Morrow said:


> @Aldarion , in fact even well-centralized empires like Byzantines will rely on stuff like "diplomatic tribute" a lot, of course not direct tributes like gold or factual materials, yet in a much more advanced way such as taxes, military service, and even commercial privilege.
> For instance, Rus's and Armenian obligation to provide military combat personnel to secure international trade roads, Serbia's taxes, as well as all those trade customs roads pass via Constantinople.
> These sources of economic income rely on not only Byzantine but also other states independent sovereign in theory, though most of times these sources are "maintained" by Byzantine's military power in fact. (A bit like USA will give you freedom in now days) XDDDD



Generally, Byzantine Empire was the _exporter_ of diplomatic tribute. Between 5th (migrations period) and 7th (islamic invasions) centuries, Byzantine Empire was the primary source of gold in Western Europe.



Hisoka Morrow said:


> I'm not sure JRRT did add U.K. empire elements into Gondor or not, yet it's obvious at least it's ancestor, the Numenor empire is a a bit similar with the British empire in 19th century. We can get this conclusion according to the possible revolts launched by the Faithfuls and ME natives in ME, so powerful that even Sauron couldn't overcome them even if he became the Imperial prime minister. Does it look like Australia's or even USA's actions to UK?
> 
> As a colonial home country, "tributes" might be a life-holding source of economic. As Gondor military expansion seldom ended, we might guess it's been a colonial empire. Of course we can assume that Gondor's policies weren't Thalassocracies-like, making the conclusion that their economic system was much similar with the so-called ground-dominant empires, after all we all knew that Gondor's territory was once horribly huge. Yet if we take the Byzantine elements into account, I'd say Gondor used the British-like style to rule those conquered lands. As an result, Thalassocracies-like economic system might be a more possible option.



Numenor definitely did bring in huge amounts of tribute. It is based on Atlantis after all. As for Gondor, I have never seen it as a primarily naval power. While navy was definitely important, we never see examples of lateral naval strategic maneuver such as Numenor employed (e.g. Ciryathur). And by late Third Age Gondor had almost no navy - defense against Corsairs was wholly land-based, and march to Minas Tirith was based on a) captured Corsair ships and b) road network, with no mention of _any_ domestic naval assets.

So no, I do not see Gondor as naval-based power at all. It did have navy, but much like Byzantine Empire, navy was always secondary to land power.



Halasían said:


> I'm curious what source you are using to say that Tolkien had 'in fact' based Gondor on the Middle Byzantine Empire?





Merroe said:


> So am I. No offense meant, but I hold this for speculation and the fact that it's repeated in every second message does not make this more true.



Everything I wrote above. And then there is also this:








Gondor, Byzantium, and Feudalism


dirigibletrance has asked me, in a comment at johncwright’s LJ: How exactly is Byzantine politics different from feudalism, other than taking place earlier and not in Western Europe? How are the politics we see of Gondor outside of the bounds of what we know as feudalism, both the narrow and…




superversive.livejournal.com






> 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 progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a ‘Nordic’.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jul 27, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> @Aldarion , I'm not sure JRRT did add U.K. empire elements into Gondor or not, yet it's obvious at least it's ancestor, the Numenor empire is a a bit similar with the British empire in 19th century.
> 
> What do you think?^^


UK Income Tax was first introduced as a temporary measure, by William Pitt the Younger at the end of the 18th Century, to help fight off Napoleon and it wasn't long before governments realised how easy it was to run a country based on this measure and taxing income became the norm. By the 20th century, UK taxes really began to bite into incomes, especially after WW2 when the first socialist government was elected. Tolkien offered us an escape from all that. Elves seemed to be able to live off the land. Dwarves dug deeper for gold and gems. Hobbits had a light economy based on agrarian practices and a defence force of Shirriffs and mayors who could easily be accommodated by people taxing themselves of a few chickens, vegetables or carpentry work etc. Gondor, and even Rohan, would need to demand something from at least the wealthy among their communities to pay for their defence and management. An interesting discussion!


----------



## Aldarion (Jul 27, 2020)

Eledhwen said:


> UK Income Tax was first introduced as a temporary measure, by William Pitt the Younger at the end of the 18th Century, to help fight off Napoleon and it wasn't long before governments realised how easy it was to run a country based on this measure and taxing income became the norm. By the 20th century, UK taxes really began to bite into incomes, especially after WW2 when the first socialist government was elected. Tolkien offered us an escape from all that. Elves seemed to be able to live off the land. Dwarves dug deeper for gold and gems. Hobbits had a light economy based on agrarian practices and a defence force of Shirriffs and mayors who could easily be accommodated by people taxing themselves of a few chickens, vegetables or carpentry work etc. Gondor, and even Rohan, would need to demand something from at least the wealthy among their communities to pay for their defence and management. An interesting discussion!



I will be writing more about it someday, but monarchies - even Byzantine Empire - actually had relatively light taxes compared to modern-day democracies. Today people are taxed of about half of their income (thanks in part to all the "free" stuff); I do not think any premodern (or even just pre-WWII) country did that.


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 27, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> I will be writing more about it someday, but monarchies - even Byzantine Empire - actually had relatively light taxes compared to modern-day democracies. Today people are taxed of about half of their income (thanks in part to all the "free" stuff); I do not think any premodern (or even just pre-WWII) country did that.


Pre-WW II, post which that thing called the middle class became established in western countries (for good reasons), the tax base was rather limited. Partly because some of those with the highest incomes were practically tax-exempt. Societies basically were divide into the filthy-rich and the dirt-poor (a slight exaggeration). Specifically income tax (a 20th-century invention?) needs a sufficient income base to be taxable. Kings and not a few of the nobility were in earlier eras among the worst credit risks, defaulting on debts (incurred due to deficient tax income) countless times.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Jul 27, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Societies basically were divide into the filthy-rich and the dirt-poor (a slight exaggeration).



I remember having read somewhere that at the end of the reign of Louis XVI (who went on to become Louis Carpet and shortly afterwards a bit "shorter"), half the state income went into the expenses of his court.


----------



## Aldarion (Jul 27, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Pre-WW II, post which that thing called the middle class became established in western countries (for good reasons), the tax base was rather limited. Partly because some of those with the highest incomes were practically tax-exempt. Societies basically were divide into the filthy-rich and the dirt-poor (a slight exaggeration). Specifically income tax (a 20th-century invention?) needs a sufficient income base to be taxable. Kings and not a few of the nobility were in earlier eras among the worst credit risks, defaulting on debts (incurred due to deficient tax income) countless times.



That is why I noted Byzantine Empire, as between thematic troops, traders and officials it actually had strong (relatively speaking) middle class. Perhaps not surprisingly, it also was one of states which taxed populace more heavily...


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Jul 27, 2020)

Tax in Gondor is Byzantine (according to JRRT).  Needing a break.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Jul 29, 2020)

Well, maybe next time we're going to wait for a new masterpiece of Aldarion about economic in ME XDDD



Merroe said:


> I remember having read somewhere that at the end of the reign of Louis XVI (who went on to become Louis Carpet and shortly afterwards a bit "shorter"), half the state income went into the expenses of his court.


Half the state income went into the expenses of his court, in theory only, after all France was using tax farming system at that time XD. We all know under such tax system, how much factual ratio of tax will finally arrive into the national treasury. XDD
That's why tax collectors were the champions to gain "dislike" among all kinds of careers in ancient time, after all, tax farming is mostly the most capable way for ancient rulers.


----------



## LOPOYASIA (Aug 11, 2020)

Gothmog said:


> I doubt very much that Rohan would be laid under tribute though Umbar probably would. The people under the protection of the crown of Gondor and the Septor of Arnor I expect would have to pay Taxes. This would not mean that all the kingdoms and principalities that swore alliegence to Gondor would have to pay taxes to the crown as such oaths of fealty may only include help in time of need and friendship at other times. Any taxes paid in the individual Kingdoms and Principalities probably would be used internaly.
> 
> I do not think that Gondor was Feudal in nature though it was probably socialy structured with a working class, a middle (trading) class and an Upper (nobility) class with lazy good-for-nothings sprinkled throughout. This is the format that all countries without feudalism or a dictatorship use.


n. I just wonder how he would run it. Why do I think of these things? I need another hobby.....


----------

