The distinction I’m making is that while you can interpret the throne of Gondor as a liege lord with vassals, that is as much because when we are telling a story about a legendary king we understand that idea of ‘king’ in familiar terms, and as western readers our image of a warrior king is rooted in medieval castles and courts.
But Aragorn is as much of a feudal king as Gilgamesh, Minos, or Arthur. The various princes charming, wicked queens, and abandoned princesses of fairy stories are all vaguely ‘feudal’ in feel too but that doesn’t mean the stories are embedded firmly in a world of strict Christendom-style vassalage and primogeniture succession.
My point is really that asking what Aragorn’s tax policy was is like asking what the economic consequences were of King Midas’s reign. By the end of RotK, he’s a ‘king’ in the archetypal, storybook sense. You know: the King. Happily ever after.
But Aragorn is as much of a feudal king as Gilgamesh, Minos, or Arthur. The various princes charming, wicked queens, and abandoned princesses of fairy stories are all vaguely ‘feudal’ in feel too but that doesn’t mean the stories are embedded firmly in a world of strict Christendom-style vassalage and primogeniture succession.
My point is really that asking what Aragorn’s tax policy was is like asking what the economic consequences were of King Midas’s reign. By the end of RotK, he’s a ‘king’ in the archetypal, storybook sense. You know: the King. Happily ever after.