Gondorian Lord

It must be noted that wealth was a reward for political and military support. The reality was that power gave you land, which gave you food which gave you military power. Similarly, if people had land they had the tools to move up the social ladder by force. Wealth gave military power and with it the means to take more land. There wasn’t much separation between the economic and political elites. In fact, land was given as a reward for loyal service and could be taken away from the family for disloyalty. In exchange for land, the tenant was required to provide military aid when called on by the lord.   The last tactics for funding the government, mainly used in crisis, were selling titles of nobility and land confiscations. These are quite self explanatory but have differing outcomes. By selling offices, money is generated. Yet it fills the aristocracy with less qualified people. The normal earning of titles via service, traditions of military service and the training to become knights that came with noble birth tended to make noble dominated officer corps at least decent if not great. However, selling offices tends to mean the noble class becomes more and more dominated by the simply rich – who may or may not have the skills and sense of duty that makes for good military officers or public servants. We can expect corruption and incompetence to become more common.

Now, the lord was responsible for protecting the peasantry – the relationship was not entirely one sided. But it was certainly unequal.   One thing that the Russians introduced was the Table of Ranks. Which appears to me to be a continuation and formalization of the Byzantine noble structure. It basically granted land to nobles based on merit. Anyone could theoretically become a noble in this system. It did include military roles. But apparently unique to Russia was the fact that bureaucrats in the civil administration also earned noble status.   The Table itself included 14 total ranks. The original plan involved each promotion being granted to qualified people after a certain time. The result was the first 9 ranks could be reached after 25 years. The top 5 ranks required personal approval from the Tsar. Originally, the 8th rank provided land grants and hereditary titles. But Nicholas I changed it to rank 6 for military service and 4 for civilian administration. The merit basis was watered down under Catherine the Great, who made promotion automatic after 7 years. Essentially being a long serving careerist earned someone land.   These land grants included serfs. The serfs were bound to the land and thus essentially slaves considered the reward for state service. This had important impacts for the whole social structure. First, the nobles did not see themselves as farmers - instead they saw themselves as servants of the Tsar. Which meant they were not interested in the wise management of the land. This contrasts with Western nobility, who saw the value of their land as their strongest asset and said land value came from agricultural productivity. The result was that both Russian serfs and nobles were less productive and prosperous than in the West.

Essentially this meant people became rich by being militarily useful to the people above them in the political hierarchy. This then granted them political power over the lands they controlled and positions as officers. This social rank was then passed down from generation to generation. Generally all wealth and land went to the oldest son of the lord. No women or younger sons. This is part of the reason one sees younger sons becoming military adventurers or clergy - the traditional means to wealth were denied them due to their birth order.   It must be noted the resulting social relations were quite complex. Many nobles had many people they reported to. Each could have many people below them. Some of these then had other masters as well. Overlapping and extensive inherited land rights and patronage obligations were the central theme of feudal governments. The land not used by the lord directly was rented out to serfs for personal use. From this renting, the infantry of the society was produced, as was the labor, rents and fees that generated the noble’s income. Remember – military support and political loyalty was all that was needed to gain such land grants.

The exact duties of the nobles depended on which part of the aristocracy the noble was a part of. In the Byzantine Empire, there were actually two different types - the military and civilian. Military ones were primarily based in the country and the civil in large cities. There were a small number of these even in the Byzantine Empire - 80 civil and 64 military noble families. This allowed aristocratic positions to grant a huge amount of power and signify closeness with the Royal Family.   Robin Cormack, "Writing in Gold, Byzantine Society and its Icons", 1985, George Philip, London, p180, using Kazhdan A.P. , 1974 (in Russian) ISBN 0-540-01085-5   Knights had to perform 40 days of military serve to their lord.   Also, in Ancient Rome, no intelligence agency was ever set up. This means the emperor relied almost entirely on reports from the governors for their intelligence on the security situation on the imperial borders. No intelligence agency reporting directly to the emperor and slow speeds of communication meant the central government exercised the most general control over military operations in the provinces. Governors had broad strategic range and almost complete autonomy of military decision-making. Apply this to the Nobles and we get an idea how Gondor would operate.   The Pronoia system - which I explain in the benefits of nobility - eventually took on a more militaristic nature. Under the Palaeologan Dynasty, it became easier to form Pronoia recipients into military forces. Money from them was used to finance wars with the Bulgarians. The loss of territory to the Ottomans saw a reduction of the tax base too, with the Byzantine Empire struggling to pay for the Army. The result was that Pronoia were some of the most financially able to raise military forces. So like the more formalized military role of Western nobility, the Pronoia became important to the local defense.

These forces were raised based on obligations to the feudal lord. The idea was that every 5 "hides" was to provide one man. A hide was 120 acres. So, for a 9 man squad that a lower ranking noble would be expected to be granted 5,400 acres. On top of the commanding a squad on the battlefield, the knights would have to manage that much land.   Round, John Horace (1911). "Knight-Service" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. 15 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 867–868.

One thing that was unique in the Byzantine system is the Pronoia system. A pronoia was essentially a grant of imperial fiscal rights to a specific person or institution. For example, a noble or a monastery could be granted the revenues from water or fishing rights to a territory or taxes from cultivation of a specific tract of land. This was unique in part due to the fact it was a revenue grant, not the land itself. Possession of land was retained by the Emperor. Which meant the pronoia was not hereditary or transferable. And while they were normally granted for life, they could also be revoked at will. Which granted the Byzantine Emperor more coercive control over the nobles.   The Byzantine System was reformed in the 11th century to effectively legitimize existing land holdings by the nobility. Competition was fierce for the land grants due to the money, power and honor that came with them. Effectively they became the local sovereigns. They began using their power to collect the taxes for themselves and plot the overthrow of the emperor. The reforms instituted by Alexius I pacified the nobles by distributing Roman lands to them while granting the revenues under pronoia to his own family. This got the nobles out of the capital, making it harder for them to plot. It also concentrated wealth in his family and control over land in the hands of the central government.   This system was expanded to the military. Officers were granted pronoia that essentially were licences to tax the local inhabitants. But it must be remembered that whether this was part of the pronoia or themes, the residents were not serfs as we typically think of them. The residents were essentially just paying land rents. There was no obligation for military service, labor or personal loyalty owed to these military officials. The Emperor retained ownership. Nor did the person receiving the grant inherit it or even originate in the area covered by the grant.   One interesting note here on military service. Typically, the pronoia were granted for some form of service. But there was no obligation to provide it under its terms. So those who became prosperous or had a good deal of autonomy were reluctant to provide military service if asked. But the Emperor could revoke the pronoia at will. Which allowed a powerful financial weapon to get desired behaviors out of people.   But further reforms also eroded the distinctions between Byzantine and Western nobility. For one, the pronoia eventually came to be inherited. Some holders of pronoia even began to issue sub grants. Their loyal followers were given a part of the pronoia grant to secure their loyalty. The later reforms did check the powers of the nobles to a degree in the sense that they were audited.   We can assume similar trends for Gondor.   Knights were the lowest in the noble hierarchy. Therefore, the smallest land grants were what was considered enough for a knight to survive. Subordinates needed this to pay the immense costs of training, buying and upkeep of equipment – not to mention to costs of going to war itself. The core idea was essentially that the nobles saw themselves as a warrior class. Land was seen as a way to sustain this way of life and a reward for success and loyalty. Often, this was a manor, which includes a village and the lands attached to it as the lord’s personal property (roughly 300 to 500 acres). This was normally considered enough to support a lower level noble and their household. Each manor and thus village normally had a church. In exchange, the knight was expected to provide 40 days of service to the lord that gave them the land. It must be noted that sometimes manors had several villages and some villages were split between manors.   With the land granted to pay for military service came the political power over the local inhabitants. They not only had to answer the call to war but had labor obligations to the lord as well, serving as a form of tax. The lord was effectively the local police chief and judges. Thus they tended to see their role as enforcing local traditions and customs. However, juries arose at local levels to assist the lords. They often decided verdicts and could follow their own consciences. While lords could override the juries, the threat of rebellions prevented abuse of that. Thus, the lord had essentially just de facto jurisdiction. The juries helped define what the customs were in the area and the lord’s role was more interpreting and applying custom to specific cases. The lower levels of society were thus consulted more frequently than we would expect today – at least at the local level.   But even the lord did not have much. Sometimes even the upper classes would only have 2 pairs of clothing. They might have more silk and fur clothing and have brighter colors, but still minimal wardrobes. Furniture remained sparse as well. Clothing and furniture were great personal investments. Recycling and refurbishment thus were used to get as much life as possible out of them. Bone, leather, wood, cloth and clay were used much more than metal, brick and stone. Most income, especially in the lower classes, was spent on food. For comparison, Dukes, the most likely equivalent to who runs the Southern Fiefs earned around $19,029,400 to $23,786,750 a year. Earls earned $7,136,025 and barons only $475,735 to $951,470. Knights got only $47,573.5 to $95,147 per year. Typically the top of the economic hierarchy averaged about 500 times the income per year of the average poorest level.   Lords could mobilize the local residents to fight in times of local emergency. This was often a bad idea though – peasants were often poorly train and equipped plus were not used to combat. Lords would often rely on a better armed and trained retune, but these were normally much smaller than what a levy could muster. Fortified manor houses, which were much more common than full castles, normally had only light fortifications. Therefore, they did not offer much protection, though better than nothing.   But the entire personal staff of the lord could be quite large. The staff could be up to 24 people with the entire household combined with the retune and travel partners could reach 50-100 people. These unfortunate fellows were on call all day and night and performed all the work for the family. But this was a vital source of revenue for many poor people in the areas the lord lived in.Then there was the free labor demanded.   Much of the wealth of the nobility comes from exploiting their lands. One way of doing this was via the water mills used to grind grain. Peasants needed to spend 2 hours a day to make enough flour for their bread. A mill could do the work of 40 men in that same time. The lord controlled the mill and charged for its use. This mill would often be fed from or even create a mill pond. Also owned by the lord. This was stocked with fish - fresh water fish in particular were prized for feasts.   Beyond the mill, the lord had a huge amount of control over the local economy. He controlled directly 35% to 40% of the land in the local village. They did use some hired hands, but labor obligations of the serfs filled as well. Then there were the fees for travel, hunting and permission to marry. This extracted a lot of wealth for the lord. The lord was responsible for minting the local currencies, which were based on the size and percentage of it made of silver. Labor obligations were normally around $317.12 or two days of work per week for the lord.   Dyes, spices and other luxury goods the lord could not get locally were often at the core of the trade routes at the time. The value of spices cannot be overstated. They could be worth more per unit of weight than gold. Colonies in later periods of history were acquired specifically to get more reliable and cheaper access to spices. The long distances one needed to traverse to import spices via medieval technology and trade routes, it is not surprising that the spice rack of a castle probably made it one of the most valuable areas of the castle. Spice therefore was almost as valuable as a status symbol as it was as a food. When one looks at the value of the spices and the role food supplies played in the military role of the castle, it should not be a surprise that the doors to the kitchen were impressive. Some were up to 100 kilograms.   Wealthier lords would have more impressive murals on their walls. Each room would be at least whitewashed in manor houses and castles. Beyond that, it was a matter of wealth. Those with more wealth could import dyes from further away - thus not be bound by what the local environment could afford. Wealthier lords also could hire better artists as well, producing more skilled works on the walls.

When they rode to battle, knights at least also had a light cavalry auxiliary in some cases. The Page and squires were essentially their support staff and apprentices. The Squires could serve as light cavalry, though sometimes it appears that they could also be heavy. These were often from landed gentry and aristocracy, even if not always with titles.   Traditionally, they would have their own personal coat of arms, a full plate suit of armor and a lance.

The Byzantine aristocratic system did not seem to rely on outright dismissal of officials that much. Some titles were added and removed as the government evolved. Others saw the prestige and honor associated with the position rise and fall over time. This allowed for some informal control over the nobility in which a highly elaborate court life was central.   The French Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks and Henry VIII all seized land to cover financial shortfalls. All three targeted church properties and monasteries. Two targeted noble estates as well. The Spanish were notorious for seizing privately held gold of their Native American subjects. The precious metals would be turned into money directly. Meanwhile, the land was to be sold for a profit. The problem is this creates significant inflation or damages the productive assets of the economy. Large scale land seizures often take land from those who productively use it and give it to less productive sectors. This is what happened in Zimbabwe. In Russia after the October Revolution, the land distribution led to famines – in part because the plots became too small to get anything of value out of them.   But these tend to be full scale crisis mode seizures on a mass scale. What is far more likely is the framing of individuals with a lot of wealth for crimes they did not commit. Then, as punishment for their “crimes”, they have their property taken. Keep in mind that even today miscarriages of justice are still common and courts still suffer from political calculations. Medieval governments do not have modern concepts of human rights, separation of powers or due process – much less modern methods of police investigation and forensic science. Torture is notorious for producing false confessions and was genuinely felt at the time to be a valid way of getting the truth. Thus it was much more common than today.   This means that this method could be a tempting way to eliminate rivals and fund the government at the same time. This way is a very nice way to generate revolts though, so rulers need to be careful. Similarly, there is only so much property that can be seized. Thus, it can work as a short term measure at best. But we do know from history that extreme measures can be taken against elites in the short term in the right conditions. The Stalinist purges of the Communist Party and Red Army are the most famous examples. But the implementation in Gondor is likely to be more sporadic, occurring whenever there is a temporary budget shortfall. This makes the economic dislocation and anger less severe and thus more manageable. Though the problems remain regardless.

It makes sense for the sort of exile colonial project that Gondor was to use a Table of Ranks style method to create its nobility. We have to remember there were two important elements in Gondor's founding that make setting up an administration difficult. The first was they were colonizers. The Faithful that set up the government were not from the area. They had no established claim to the land. They did not own it or have any traditions that would legitimize one owner over another. Something would need to be found to justify the power of nobility.   The other was the fact Numenor just went through a devastating military defeat due to subversion and cultural schism. The result was there was no assurances that people who came over would be loyal. Nor was there any core administrative system in place. Just like how the new government would need to create a system to legitimize land ownership, it needed to find a way to form a new administration. The Table of Ranks provides a means to screen for political reliability. Then, if they pass, service to the king can become the foundations for their land and privileges.