In order to get a feel for how and when resistance from within the winning coalition takes place, we need to take a look at how governing coalitions operate when they are expanding. When the governing coalition is sufficiently small, the majority of the revenue goes to the private rewards of loyalists rather than public goods. However, as the coalition expands, a pattern emerges with lower taxation, higher investment in public goods, higher revenue and higher economic productivity. If this continues for long enough, the productivity and revenues rise to the point that everyone benefits in absolute terms.
The problem is that as this process begins, the costs to the coalition can be extreme – the diversion of revenue to public investment, lower taxes and the reduction in share of revenues can cause a strong reaction. Early stages of this development do not see the improvements in revenue developing fast enough to counter the declining share, so relative losses are most likely to be the most severe and also measurable in absolute terms as well. Should the resistance not be strong enough to stop this trend, the result is the economic growth will fuel higher rewards even at lower tax rates and lower total share of coalition rewards. Each expansion of the coalition sees greater returns go to the coalition for less cost to preexisting membership.
Eventually, the rewards for pushing for an expanded coalition outweigh the costs of that expansion to the coalition, but the coalition becomes harder and harder for masters to manage. A ruler will always have an incentive to keep the winning coalition small, but the coalition can hit an breakaway point where its incentives begin to expand. This puts a wedge between the ruler and the coalition. Events that push the winning coalition to expand past this breakaway point creates self sustainability that prevents long lasting counterrevolutionary successes.
There is an inflection point that prior to this point where each expansion hurts the existing winning coalition and their welfare continues to decline, but after welfare goes up. However, there is a long way between this floor in coalition welfare and where it started. Until it returns to that point there will be grievances that provide rallying cries for counterrevolutionaries. Counterrevolution is much easier prior to this inflection point. After it the incentives to continue to expand the coalition becomes clearer and thus it is harder to convince the reactionaries to support coalition reductions. Once the trend culminates at the point where coalition welfare is greater in absolute terms compared to the pre-revolution status quo, counterrevolution is virtually impossible.
As the governing coalition expands, the extent to which purges must occur to reduce the coalition to the point where those that remain benefit from the purges grows. This means that each expansion of the coalition then makes it harder to reduce the size of the coalition back to its original size. In this, the tipping point is where the majority of the coalition must be removed in order for the remaining coalition members to have a share large enough to compensate for losses in economic production. As purges introduce uncertainty into the coalition, each person who needs to be purged increases the total risk to members as the odds they can escape the purge go down. When only a small number need to be removed, most members are likely to support it as they are relatively unlikely to be purged and thus more likely to benefit from it. As odds of being removed go up, so too does the opposition and when the majority needs to be purged, such actions are likely to provoke the removal of the ruler.
Rulers thus need to tread carefully when large scale purging is essential to their aims, either working in small steps or recognizing the need for action before draconian actions are needed. Purges like all repression works better in early stages when the numbers of targets needed to be repressed to be effective is smaller. Eventually, expansion of the coalition produces gains greater than is possible under the most extremely small coalition possible given local conditions. At this point there is likely to be no one willing to support purges as even those who remain will suffer. Thus, the breakaway point secures the gains of the expansion.
Between the start of the expansion and the inflection point, the governing coalition will resist and be uniform in their opposition to it. Between the inflection and breakaway point, the rewards for joining the counterrevolutionaries runs the risk of costing them their position but will benefit them proportionally to the risks due to the scale of the reductions needed. However, there is greater security for their position in siding with continued coalition expansion but less generous rewards. However, the less generous rewards are much better than being removed from power entirely. Thus, the essential backers must choose between larger but less certain gains or more secure but less enriching rewards. There is likely to be fragmentation of the governing coalition at this point that will slowly begin to shift to the side of the expansion as the breakaway point is reached.
Rulers would not choose to expand their coalition if they feel they can get away with it. Which means that if coalition expansion is the path chosen, the enemies facing the rulers would actually be the reactionary members of the governing coalition. These would be the people who the ruler needs to stay in power and feel that their own positions are best served by a small coalition arraignment. Essentially, those who want to undo the coalition expansion. For our purposes, these would be the nobles. They would be threatened by the expansion of democratic rights, public good investments and industrialization. Meanwhile, the increase in smallholdings strips the noble class of their monopoly on land holdings.
At risk of sounding like a broken record, Aragorn would feel that he has no choice but to rely on the people empowered by the same policies threatening the nobles. Thus the nobles would feel that they need to roll back these policies while Aragorn would feel the need to continue down that path. So we have the set up for a counterrevolutionary resistance to the new order. Remember how repressions and specifically purges work best when they target a smaller proportion of the governing coalition? And how doing so before things break out into open rebellion is the ideal time? Then that the same coalition would resist less when the targets are smaller in number? Well, this is where that starts to manifest itself.
The Conflict
Prelude
Now, the problem with this set of policies is they are very good at securing Aragorn’s domestic position during the initial crisis of ascension, fiscal collapse and external enemies marching from all directions. But, they are also very good at making the problems structural. These policies would effectively radically expand the size of the coalition of essential backers that Aragorn has to rely on. Many of the educational programs that are needed to help suppress Southron and Easterling language and culture can only come from the gentry as commoners are too poorly educated in feudal states and the nobles too few in numbers. But the gentry class is too big to rely on the sort of personal contacts that nobles can call on. This means that most likely a form of civil service style exam will arise and schools aimed at preparing gentry and noble children for public service. This is not too outlandish, as ancient Roman elites used similar schools and China had such exams.
Also, the nobles are likely to be screwed pretty bad. Historically, mass mobilization warfare has reduced the power and wealth of nobles. The destruction of land, decline in prices for agricultural products and manpower due to the war causes damage to overall productivity of landed estates and thus the wealth of elites. The deaths from the war have two major impacts here. The first is there is a loss of consumers and thus in demand for food, driving down prices. International trade is cut off as well, meaning foreign customers can’t pick up the slack. At least until the end of the war. Then, there is also loss of manpower to work the farms, reducing productivity. The same is a concern for horses too. They were "conscripted" into armies into World War One, which contributed to the food supply issues in Russia.
An important part of that is due to the decline in labor supply, wages go up. The combined effects is nobles see their position decline. In this scenario, we will see Gondor’s conscripts get diverted away from serfdom whether they live or die because of the land received as compensation. Add in the fact that a few of the noble houses are likely to have been purged in some form due to not supporting Aragorn’s ascension, they will be smaller in power, absolute numbers and percentage of the governing coalition Aragorn relies on. Lastly, the conquests mean that the value of land plummets due to there being so much more in Gondor. When the value of land drops relative to the value of labor, landed elites see their relative and in some cases even absolute wealth decline and with it their power.
One policy that has been used to get around this is slavery. After all – Gondor just conquered a large area. Take the people as slaves and you get a solution to the labor shortage right? There are at least three major problems with using slavery to solve the labor issues in Gondor that makes me think that it is not really a solution. First, the populations of both Easterlings and Southrons would be too low. Subtract from the prewar the deaths from combat, the harshness of the occupation, disease, starvation and refugees. Once that is done, I doubt there will be enough to make up for the serfs mobilized. Then you add in that there is more land that needs to be cultivated due to the conquests and the labor demands go up even more.
If we use the Roman model (which I justify later) the total Easterling and Southron populations prior to the wars would put them in line with what I would expect. The Roman Empire had between 35% to 40% of the population of Italy and 10% to 15% of its total population as slaves. This means that the conquered populations could be reduced by 234,000 and still be in line with historical slave societies. But the policies I discuss before have reduced Native American populations to around 1/8 the original numbers of what they were prior to colonization.
This took a long time, but I suspect this would be much quicker than in real life. Mainly due to the fact the entire territory would be conquered much quicker. In real life the sheer size of North America prevented atrocities from being carried out at the fringes for centuries after the process began. In Middle Earth, such geographic protections would not apply. Add in the fact that the Roman slaves had a life expectancy of 17 years – by the 20 year mark and the initial slave population would have been burned through entirely. As I also say that some if not all of these people would be incorporated into the encomienda system, the numbers don’t add up for an effective slave system. Then add in healthy adults (mainly males) would be the main population desired, and not even this already reduced population would be used.
The next major issue is there is no institutional framework for hereditary slavery. The Romans did have a history of slavery, which is the only major precursor to the sort of slavery used in feudal Europe. There was also the Middle East Slave Trade that was in operation in the 1300s, but medieval England generally had such low demand for slaves that there was little exposure to it.This means that the Roman model would have been what most people were familiar with in the present day UK. But for various reasons, neither the Roman or Middle East slave systems made slavery a hereditary condition.
Roman slaves came from prisoners of war, debt, criminal punishment and piracy. When you no longer have a population to take from via raids and wars, the source of large scale slavery has to come from reproduction. But unless there is enough people in the conquered territories to impose slavery and the elites come up with a radical new conception of how the slave system is to work quickly, this would not work. Keep in mind that the children have to be raised and cared for until they are old enough to work. This means the elites would have to come up with the idea for hereditary slavery, get the legal framework created, then somehow induce their new slaves to reproduce all so quick that enough of the 17 year life span of the slaves is left to raise their children to be old enough to work (possibly 10-15 years old). This leaves the adoption of the system at best a 7 year window. Yeah, I have trouble thinking this would be possible.
Lastly, capital costs make it too expensive. Unless Aragorn wishes to give them out like party favors, the slaves are likely to be sold at auction. During the reign of Augustus, a 2% sales tax was placed on slaves. There were 250,000 sales and the tax raised 5,000,000 sesterces. This means 1,000 sesterces per slave on average. I was unable to find much information regarding the value of a sestertius in today’s money, but did find that the coin was 4.5 grams of silver. This means that 4,500 grams of silver got you a slave. At today’s price of silver, that is $2,385.75. Add in the costs of subsistence at $300 a year I have been using throughout this and the 17 year expected life span and upkeep would be $5,100 for a total of $7,485.75 per slave. This means an average of $440.34 in revenue per slave just to break even. In a war torn and economically devastated nation like Gondor’s where elites are already being squeezed, this cost adds another layer of practical limitations.
But, Roman style slavery did use criminals, POWs and debtors to work in the mines. So, one possibility is that slavery can be used to solve another issue – potential rebels. Aragorn could institute slavery for crime and debts then sell those he wants to get rid of to the dwarves. This fills Gondor’s treasury, exports the problem and provides labor to the dwarves.
That version of slavery doesn’t help with the nobles though. At this point though the blatantly hostile nobles will likely have been killed in the mobilization efforts for the conquests. How does one get the rest to tow the line as their economic interests decline? History provides a means for that as well. I have borrowed from Edward Luttwak’s book on coups, as I feel this is the best analogy to Aragorn here. Wavering elites should be dealt with through work that keeps them busy and expending their energy, which then prevents them for coordinating revolts. Posting them away from other disloyal people makes communications difficult. So while they may retain their wealth from estates, they should be kept busy with diplomacy to other nations. Remote and nominal command postings also works well. Lastly, the questionable individuals should be given posts that have little to no resources (such as budgets or troops) that can be turned against the state. Active disloyalty should be met with executions. This would basically only leave the really loyal nobles in control over their estates.
Also – Isengard will come under Gondor’s control. Isengard has the library and infrastructure that can allow a rapid expansion of factories throughout Gondor – especially to Mordor where the environment is already not great. Military Keynesianism and export led growth based on foreign direct investment and importing the technical information for industrialization is basically how China has industrialized. Tax revenues will be declining in per capita terms even if the total revenue is going up. Investment in public goods and pressure for democracy will also be increasing.
England had a similar path to industrialization – though it used its imperialism to feed the war machine rather than explicit military spending for job creation like we do here in the US. It didn’t export to other nations as much but it did use its own colonies as markets. But as the First Industrial Revolution got started, England had to use its domestic resources and innovations. Thus it took a longer time. However, it shared a lot of similarities to Gondor. Naturally, there was large amounts of coasts, rives and roads in key areas.
The policies I outline create a new class of people who need to produce goods and services for profit on the open market instead of reliance on serfs and land rents. The huge increase in incomes that are produced due to urbanization and the effects of total war will produce a larger demand for an increase in quality and quantity of consumer goods. Greater trade links with the Dwarves will lead to trade liberalization, a factor that helped the British industrialize.
Then there is the explicit policy side. First, there was a period of peace and stability which followed the unification of England and Scotland, similar to the unification of the realms of men after the War of the Ring. Secondly, there was a good, pro business legal code with such elements as no trade barriers between England and Scotland and enforcing property rights and respecting the sanctity of contracts. It was straightforward and allowed the formation of joint-stock companies, tolls had largely disappeared from Britain by the 15th century, and a free market. All of these would be basic policy tools to keep the gentry, smallholders, shopkeepers, traders and manufacturers happy. More importantly these are the sort of people that Aragorn will be relying on more and more as time goes on and will be increasing in numbers. This is also includes the class that drove industrialization in real life.
However, there is a political cost to this – democracy. If your goal is power, these policies secure you on the throne in the short term but reduce your power in the long term. It seems this is the driving force for transition to democracy in real life. A leader was facing a fiscal crisis. Their response was to expand the ruling coalition so he could cut out the more expensive established elites and still stay in power. They were still in power a year later, but had been voted out ten years after that. The cliff notes version of the Magna Carta’s origin was King John was facing revolt in part due to his debts. He had to expand his coalition by granting more power and rights to his barons. From there, the parliament became a part of English political life with ever increasing power and franchise.
How does this work? Basically, the policies that help keep the gentry, petite bourgeoisie, entrepreneurs, factory owners and so forth loyal require the foundations of good governance. Property rights must be respected. A degree of restraint in government policy is needed to keep the economy going so that these economic classes retain their profits. Then add in that the productivity of laborers is required to generate tax revenues and too much alienation of the lower classes produces tax avoidance, which threatens the government.
But democratic reforms are required in a medieval, expanding coalition context out of a more fundamental reason – limited technology. Those in power do not stay in power if they alienate key supporters. In feudal societies, the size of the coalition is small – essentially just the really powerful nobles and clergy of the area. This small clique is small enough that letters and personal meetings can let rulers get a feel for what policies the key backers want.
But expand this to a coalition of thousands spread out over all of a nation the size of Gondor’s and there is practical problems with communications. In the medieval period, one cannot simply email everyone or conduct phone polls. Allowing free speech, rights of assembly, the right to protest and petition the government for redress of grievances are all tools that can help rulers establish what people demand in exchange for loyalty. They can also use these same tools to figure out just how widespread dissatisfaction really is. While no ruler likes the idea of giving up any power, those that voluntarily democratize do so knowing they must choose to give up some of their power or risk losing all of it.
So this is the core idea behind how I think Gondor will industrialize. The shifting power will move to urban workers, industrialists and financiers. This group would push for the abolition of slavery. So at first, the slaves would flow to the Southern Fiefs and to the Dwarves in order to keep them happy. As this occurs, Aragorn would be able to help appease his dwarven backers in Moria and possibly the Lonely Mountain.
But as the industrial powers grow, major issues will arise. The first is that export led growth can only get you so far. Especially when the Dwarves control the international markets. The result is domestic consumer spending needs to pick up the slack if industrial profits are to be maintained. But the economic elites are too few to support an entire national industrialized economy through their spending. You need the lower classes to have higher spending. You can only get that through a reliance on wage labor.
So there is an economic incentive to eliminate slavery. Which would then translate into political incentives due to these industrial based classes being the core of Aragorn’s new coalition. This is reinforced by the fact that the veteran small holders he created as part of his retirement packages would not be able to compete with large slave plantations. These veterans also would be a bad demographic for Aragorn to anger. Thus, peace can be purchased in these areas.
The industrial elites specifically would not be harmed by abolition, relative to say the old aristocracy. Slaves are a long term investment that requires upkeep even when they are unproductive. Plus, they require more capital expenditures. As poor as slave housing is, it still has to be provided. This makes sense when there is always going to be some minimal level of demand for plantation goods the aristocracy can count on. Wood used for construction and heating is often free on plantations, not in cities. Slaves also are able to run their own gardens, allowing lower food costs. So plantations can keep slaves for less than an industrialist would be able to.
Industrialists do not have this luxury. Instead, the ability to hire and fire instantly based on the current market is much better for them. Plus, they don’t need to provide housing. Just give people a wage and let them pay their rent. Which then could serve as a source of profits for other urban elites. Also, the raw materials need to be imported into cities. Not only is this the sort of labor market flexibility that helps them, it creates the same consumer market the elites rely on faster.
Similarly, the abolition of slavery would undercut the economics of the Corsairs and the Near Harad tribes allied with them. Not to mention becoming popular with the residents of Nurn and Harad. Meanwhile, it would go a long way towards diffusing tensions. So as the industrialization takes place, this would help contain the threats of revolts in Harad.
This means that there are group of people whose threat of revolt is reduced by abolition. Then there are those who no longer need slaves to be profitable. Many others would feel economically threatened by slavery, like the industrial workers. Plus their bosses financially benefit too. With this, there is a coalition that can push Aragorn for abolition. They would benefit from and be supportive of this move.
Yet the large land owning elites would still have a large amount of power. Which would be threatened by this. When rural economies are based on slaves, abolition becomes problematic. And slaves would be important too - the decline in serfdom would also prove a threat slavery initially was seen to solve. First, the sudden uptick in expenses as the “free” labor needs to get wages. Freedom will also lead to people leaving the horrors of their former masters and right into the arms of those with better wages. So there would likely be bankruptcy and labor issues that drastically hurt the former slave owning elites.
And serfdom would be on the decline too. Which is part of the reason slavery would even be contemplated in Gondor's core areas. The mass mobilization of troops would call on the serfs from feudal estates. This would continue as the new compensation package would mean volunteers would get land beyond what they felt otherwise possible. The call of higher wages and freedoms in urban manufacturing jobs would appeal to the serfs too. All of this would make serfdom harder and harder to maintain. Official abolition may not even have to be declared. If it is, it would effectively be an endorsement of trends already too developed to stop.
Plus there would be other economic challenges. Most notably is the rise in unemployment. The plantations would see an epidemic of closures. So there would be a drastic and sudden rise in rural unemployment. Cities would not be able to handle it all. Unrest would grow. In the rural areas, this would stem from the unemployment and probably push for land reforms. Which would lead to essentially peasant revolts if land redistribution does not happen. Rural elites would naturally resist this. But it would appeal to the demographics that feel increasingly empowered and emboldened. Aragorn also would be relying more and more on these people. So he would become increasingly likely to sign off on that policy.
Like rulers, essential backers do not give up power willingly. If one group feels that they might be turned on, they will seek to remove the ruler and replace them with someone more loyal. This is where the risk of coups comes into play.
One option would be compensation for the slaves emancipated and the land redistributed. But there are no assurances that this will happen. First, there is no example of a peaceful and successful emancipation of slaves or serfs in Middle Earth history. So no one would have any real clue how to wisely manage this process. Just as important is that no prior examples will let fear take control.
After all, some will fear the consequences. Poorly managed transitions in real life have seen reductions in agricultural output. Fears will rise regarding the impact of such an increase in available labor. The same racist rhetoric used to justify slavery would cause fears over what would happen the second the “lazy savages” are free.
You have one group justifiably pissed at their treatment. The other is fearful of a drastic loss of power, status and wealth. Not to mention what would happen to them if their former abuse victims are en masse liberated from strict control. Naturally, tensions will flare as would the temptation of violence. In this context, we can expect a less peaceful transition.
So, lets look at the social forces involved. The first and most obvious would be the nobles. First we have to recognize that feudal agriculture was not exactly the best. Part of the issue was the nobility essentially being absentee landlords. Well, at least in the Russian case that I am drawing from here. The basis of land grants on state service had two problematic impacts on farming. First, it meant that the nobles did not care about agricultural efficiency. They were military men or civil servants. Increases in farm productivity was not exactly important as they did not see it as part of their identity or core to their power and wealth.
Next, because of their roles in civil service, they did not spend too much time on their estates. They effectively just collected their rents and lived wherever their posts were. And for a lot of nobles, the grants left the family after the person left the post. After all, only the top posts became inherited. So they did not feel an incentive to invest in long term capital improvements or management practices. Why invest too much when one does not have a long term stake in the land?
Their serfs are just as important here. The result of their absentee noble lords made their lives harder. Essentially, the serfs had to work for and pay rent to these nobles. They owned all the land and thus had power. But the nobles were hardly ever present. They took no role in the lives of the peasants and did nothing to improve their lives. Essentially the serfs felt, understandably, that the nobles exploited them without caring or even knowing them.
This is especially given the reactionary views of the Russian state at the time. The radical traditionalists thought that Russia needed to remain an absolute monarchy resting on noble dominion over farming. They idealized patriarchal class society that assumed and counted on the unqualified support of the peasants. These peasants were to be socially isolated and controlled for their own good by their superiors. Serfs were to be left without the alledgedly corrupting influence of too much education or culture. No wonder the nobles were some of the most reactionary people and why the serfs were not too fond of the arraingement.
The result was a tendency of violent and destructive uprisings. Typically, the main peasant demand was more land. While the serfs were the least educated class, they also had a tradition of farming. So it is justifiable for them to feel that they knew what they were doing. Which means that only more land could solve their poverty. Which was held by the nobles who couldn't be bothered to invest in their estates or even show up.
Part of the issue of the poverty of serfs has to do with land tenure. Even after emancipation, the land did not become the personal property of the serfs. Instead, it was transferred to the commune of the area. Which had the power to redistribute land periodically based on the number of male workers in a family. This then had many problems. First, it promoted the same absentee issue facing the nobles. Why invest too much in the land if it most likely would be taken in the next redistribution? Then, more land went to larger families. So instead of more capital to increase productivity, having more children was prioritized. Which then simply meant that more of the output in absolute terms was needed to feed the family. So it can be doubted if this actually benefited the peasant families any.
Not to say that there was much of a solution for them. Even the better off Western serfs were still living
in relative poverty because of something they shared with their Russian counterparts. Communal ownership of land assigned to the peasants in scattered strips. The communal issues were pointed out above. The issues with the strips was the ineffeciency of it. No one strip was productive enough to support a family. So each family had several of them. These were scattered so much that it became difficult to farm. This also was an impediment to more mechanized techniques. It is not practical to use a tractor designed for a single tract of 500 acres when one has 5 tracts totalling 250. You will spend more time getting equipment from field to field than using it, and with not enough return.
Then there is the growing urban working class. If Gondor does continue to industrialize similar to the Russian model, we can see some trends appear regarding this class. First off, most of the new workers were not long time urban residents. Most actually still retained some connections to their old farm communities. The majority sent a portion of their wages to the family members left behind. There was also a group that would work seasonally in factories and return home to help with the harvest.
Which meant that speaking generally, city life was not desired for its own sake. Instead, most families were left at home. The workers had more of a vested interest in these rural areas. They either returned there every few months to work or still had significant family ties there. Even if they personally moved to the city full time, they still frequently owned land "back home". Sometimes this was even due to the fact they were legally forbidden from selling their land.
For those that worked in both areas, they might not even return to the same industry - going back to the same factory was even rarer. Basically, the land and the rural village was much more important to the Russian worker than say the urban British one. Development of urban workers as a cultural and economic force was much slower than in other areas. So too was the development of skilled blue collar workers too.
This means that there is essentially two points at which there is a risk of Aragorn getting removed. The first is before the inflection point, when the nobles are the only real power at the table. The second is between the inflection point and breakaway point, where the “middle class” has enough power to counter the nobles and have their influence expanding. From a narrative perspective, when this revolt occurs establishes the nature of it.
In the first case, there are a few historical models to borrow from. The first is the assassination of Caesar. The nobles here would arrange to have Aragorn murdered to make way for someone they feel is more accepting of their demands. This is entirely possible, as Caesar was doing two things – diverting resources that were normally lining the pockets of the senators to projects that help the poor and stripping them of their power. This is similar to what I outline Aragorn should do. Of course, this back fired and the slide towards bread, circuses and empire was completed by Augustus.
Now, these trends were going on before the assassination took place. So, the killing did not stop the trends, just sped them along basically. In the case of Gondor, this style of assassination would probably lead to the king trying to counter the power of the nobles through violent repression and the turning to others for power – just like in Rome. In Rome, civil war eliminated the threat of real rivals and Imperial power came to rest much more strongly on a professional army. The king – whether Aragorn if he survives or a successor – would probably do the same by strengthening the army and backing the other big players. In Rome, the acceleration of existing trends produced empire. In Gondor I suspect this would actually hasten democracy.
The second would be the Magna Carta. In this case, the nobles openly rebelled. The Archbishop of Cantebury brokered a peace treaty essentially. The Royal Family tried repeatedly to walk it back, even leading to the English Civil War. But while the monarch lost practically all power, they still retained huge social influence and significant wealth. Most people would rather that option than total defeat, which was King John’s probable other option. The nobles gained a lot in the deal. But a look at the power of the House of Lords now and the trends the Magna Carta set in motion saw their own power stripped as well. A rebellion by nobles that forces Aragorn to accept something like the Magna Carta, especially when other actors are already gaining in power, would produce at best short term protections for them.
The Glorious Revolution is the third option. In real life, Parliament conspired with William of Orange so that he could become King of England. For Gondor, this could take two forms. Less likely is Rohan's former royal family. They are of high enough social stature and naturally support tradition. But racism would probably make them look for alternatives. Faramir would fill that role. His de facto royal position, established relationship with the nobles and seeming weakness would make him attractive. More importantly, he is Gondorian. And his relationship with Eowyn would garner him support from Rohan's political establishment too.
Lastly, we can assume that Aragorn will not be idle as nobles plot against him. After all, he is not an idiot. The nature of power in Lord of the Rings suggest that he would become increasingly attached to his post. Anyone with enough power to effectively challenge him will be regarded with increasing suspicion. Aragorn is likely to descend into a state of mad paranoia as he sees enemies everywhere. Think body guards and food tasters to the extreme. Especially when we remember that he is undergoing the stresses I mention in the sections related to the Easterling Conflicts. This is why I suspect the Tower Guard would be reorganized similar to the Praetorian Guard or a separate group to serve this function set up. But that is likely to be a somewhat slow to turn to irrational fear. At first he will be focused on the nobles who have the best combination of both means and motive to see him removed.
How would he counter the nobility at this point should he discover the plot? The first option is a form of Red Wedding style massacre. There are historical analogs to this. First there was the Massacre of Glencoe. Here, around 40 people were killed by their hosts due to a failure to pledge loyalty to the new monarchs. Another 40 died as the loyalist troops burned down homes in the area. Another similar event was called the Black Dinner. Here, two important leaders of a clan seen as a threat were invited into the house of their killers. During dinner, a boar’s head was carried into the hall as a symbol of death. The two targets were carried outside, given a mock trial and murdered. Whether it takes the form of the Red Wedding or the destruction of the Great Sept of Baelor, Game of Thrones shows how this can be done to create a powerful scene.
One likely manifestation of the social conflicts would be essentially slave and serf revolts. It seems unlikely that this would be coordinated. But also likely is that they will occur in rapid succession. One will inspire others nearby for example. We see something similar in both French and Russian revolutions. Essentially mob violence led to the destruction of manor houses, driving off aristocratic families, murdering some and seizing of land. The Bolshevik decrees on land essentially were legalizing the land seizures conducted in this manner by Russian peasants after the Tsar fell.
On one hand, this would break the power of the nobles using "unauthorized" mob violence. The people doing it would be the people Aragorn wants to court. But the use of mob violence to coerce government policy is not something that any government would want to see become normalized. So I suspect that Aragorn would on one hand let the activities run their course for a period of time. Then, like the Bolsheviks, legalize the land redistribution. But then he would need to condemn the violence. Troops would be sent in to stabilize the situation and "ringleaders" would get public executions.
The problems with such a move go beyond the clear moral issues in large scale premeditated murder of political rivals. This comes down to the flaws of Aragorn’s domestic application of dual containment. His objective would be to control the nobles and middle classes. Dual containment is basically the policy of providing aid to two sides of a conflict while fueling their mutual hostility. Both sides feel dependent on their sponsors, are too fearful of their enemy and focused on winning that conflict. Thus two potential enemies are contained at the same time. US policy towards Iran and Iraq is most often where this policy gets talked about. But, just like with the US invasion of Iraq, a Red Wedding style massacre of the nobles would destabilize everything. Yeah, one set of rivals is gone – but they are not the problems.
Due to the aid provided to them, the other side of the equation now is absolutely stronger than before. They also no longer have their rivalries that both contain them and draw their attention. More importantly, they will recognize that loyalty to their patron may not provide the security they thought it would. After all the gentry just watched the King’s noble backers get utterly killed. Not just hurt though declines in living standards – outright destroyed as a class.
This will have important implications. Loyalty does not look like the solid bet that it once did to advance themselves. The fear that once maintained loyalty might now drive people away from the regime. The Prince talks about how it is better to be feared than loved if one can’t be both. This act will make sure that Aragorn is certainly not loved. The fear might now be working against him as well. More important is the Prince’s warning that hatred is much stronger than fear. When a ruler is more hated than feared, their reign is in its last days. A Red Wedding will surely inspire just as much strong hatred as it does fear.
Another possibility involves the pressure from workers and serfs as an excuse for Aragorn to do what he has always wanted to do. He would claim that his hand was forced and he had no choice but to cave to popular will. Even if he had the policy options to take over options. This would basically result in turning to the serfs as a counterweight to noble power and as a pillar of support for the monarch. The question becomes essentially how to turn a traditionally rebellious class interested in at least reforms into a more conservative and prosperous group invested in the existence of the monarchy.
Now, the nobles would have been suffering for a while now. The trends in Russian Nobility resulted in economic decline for them as a class. Before the War of the Ring, their wealth was curtailed by a failure to exploit the full value of their land. Agriculture was much less efficient than it could have been, which hurt the total wealth of the nobles. Then, the absentee landlord idea was fashionable to the point that money was wasted on luxuries rather than capital investments. These not only reduced wealth but increased debts of the Nobles.
The number of serfs became the main criteria by which nobles were judged. But the War of the Ring unleashed several trends that weakened this. Industrialization, battlefield losses, possible famine and disease reduced the number of serfs on estates. Then competition would became a problem too - the plantations of Umbar and the land grants of Arnor both would be incorporated into the internal Gondorian market. Arnor also would be problematic because it was closer to the export markets. So not only would barriers to trade be eliminated, these would be modern agricultural producers. Which then means that they would produce more, better and/or cheaper goods.
All this to say the nobles would lose out pretty quickly. The workforce is gone and/or demanding higher wages. The competition would steal their revenue streams. Luxury spending would have left them with no money to invest to compensate with. Their debts would then come due. We can imagine that the nobility would see a rash of land sales and bankruptcy to compensate. In Russia, this produced a reduction in noble land holdings of about a third over a 40 year period between the emancipation of serfs and the 1905 revolution.By 1917, it is estimated that 47% of all land suitable for cultivation and 82% of the land actually being farmed was in the hands of peasants.
But these same trends would cause the government and financial elites interested in emancipation finacial leverage. Debts had grown to collosal levels by 1959. A solid third of remaining land holdings were morgaged to the government or to banks. Two thirds of serfs were morgaged too. Since this was a significant part of their power, the nobles could not even control the assets that would allow them to resist emancipation.
Figes, Orlando (1996). A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891–1924. Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-04162-2.
So if Aragorn wants to convert the serfs into a counterweight to the nobles, this is his opportunity. We have to remember too that there would be two major problems Aragorn would be facing. The first is the conflict between the nobles and the serfs. The serfs simply wanting land at the expense of the nobles. But the other is the efficiency problem. The plantations and land grants would over this same time be demonstrating the inefficiency of the old feudal methods. So Aragorn would need to 1) modernize farming in the Southern Fiefs, 2) convert the serfs into loyal and conservative supporters and 3) keep the nobles from using their remaining power to overthrow him.
First would be emancipation under the Russian system. This would be horrible for the nobles as it was the basis for their position in society. But the serfs would love it on the surface. The problem was that it required the serfs pay the government for the land, which was managed by the local commune. This would prevent noble backlash to a degree, as it would help them repay their debts. So at least it would stop or slow some of the worst impacts on noble economic power.
But one key problem was not technically the payments per se. It was that the payments were so high they exceeded the value that the land could produce. So the serfs had an economic incentive to renounce their claims to the land and become industrial workers. From a food production perspective, this is a bit of a short term problem. But Aragorn would probably not worry too much. His industrial backers would like the increase in labor supply.
Nor would this be a long term problem - the major issue labor wise for the serfs was too many people. The incentive to have more children resulted in families being too large for increases in land to translate into a higher quality of life. Should some of these people move to the cities, the problem is mitigated. More importantly, the increase in urban workers can then be used to produce more agricultural tools only available from factories. So proper management of this can lead to greater efficiency in farming.
One last note specifically about emancipation of serfs. We would have Gondor's army in the War of the Ring being made up of a mix of a small number of peasant conscripts and a small number of professional troops fighting next to each other. So the difference in quality would be clear to all. In Russia, the poor performance of serf troops in the Crimean War motivated the abolition of serfdom. The defeats in that war was what highlighted the quality difference. Meanwhile, Gondor would come to the same conclusion by comparing its own troops. But the outcome would be the same. Gondor would abolish serfdom in an attempt to increase its own security.
At this point the political position of the serfs would be dramatically better. But mere emancipation is necessary but not sufficient to turn peasants into a prosperous and politically reliable class. This is the role of the nobles and their main utility politically. Mere emancipation still leave serfs in a grim struggle for survival.
There would still be problems for them. Without fixing these issues, the peasants were still a potential revolutionary force. First of these problems is peaceful transfer of land over time through private land purchases would not be ideal politically. Emancipation would strip whatever justification the nobles had for their large landholdings and their ability to farm it. But it did not strip the land itself from their control.
When the serfs feel their economic advancement requires the taking of land from people who can't farm or even justify owning, it would be hard to keep them from seizing it. Nor is there anything inherent in peaceful land purchases over time that leads to consolidation of land holdings. Different plots of land would enter the market at different times and at different prices, with different people able and willing to buy each plot. The efficiency problem of scattered plots remains.
The last issue relates to class. The people buying the land would be the gentry or well off peasants. If you can't afford to feed your family, one cannot afford to buy land on the open market. Which means the people who need it the most would not get it. And these people are those most likely to revolt. And they are the easiest to buy off.
So, Aragorn would need to do two things to improve the position of serfs in economic terms. He would need to increase the average land holdings of the serfs after emancipation. Secondly, a policy that consolidates these holdings into single tracts would be needed. It would be the success Aragorn has with these reforms that establishes if the peasants are able to take over the role of the nobles. Otherwise, Aragorn would be robbed of any politically reliable class and Gondor would lose the prosperous class able to feed the rest of the population.
The two main Russian reforms under Stolypin proved both effective and popular. The first was allowing holders of allotments of commune (noble for Gondor) land into personal property. The second was the consolidation of that land into single plots. In Russia, local officials were overwhelmed with the applications by peasants wishing to exploit these reforms.
For Gondor, the question remains how does this get implemented. First, we have already mentioned compensation to nobles. So it is likely that true ownership over the new plots would not be formally granted until the peasants pay for it. This would essentially mean a morgage system managed by the government that pays the nobles for the lost land.
We also have to remember that serfs did not farm all the land on noble estates. Some was retained for their personal use. This reduced area would not be taken in this scheme. The nobles would still likely be the largest landowners in the area. Importantly, with the new economic and legal realities, such a reduced holding would be more practical for them to farm.
For a time, the hunting and fishing rights on this land would grant them revenue streams. Plus, nobles would have the farming equipment and grain mills needed for peasant farmers. At first, renting these would still allow the nobles a lot of economic power at the local level. Lastly, the nobles would probably still retain control over the distribution networks.
Next, the total land of the consolidated plots needs to be factored in. If we remember, 13 acres was the norm for peasants at the day, though some had as little as 5. But 20 was classified as a well off peasant. But 40 acres is what I think the conscript soldiers would get for continued service and volunteers would get 100. So much more than 20 would undercut the recruitment into the army. But this is not an issue. 20 acres would be a substancial improvement over the situtation for most peasants before these reforms.
The location becomes important now. Getting food to the ever growing cities would be a major issue for Aragorn. Also, it is entirely possible that the smaller noble holdings might not be able to provide enough land for 20 acres per serf. Nor could such consolidations occur unless all the peasants in an area were both willing and able to do so at the same time.
These problems could be eliminated through selling off former Theme lands in the areas near the cities. This is practical because Gondor's expansion would push the borders further from the major established cities. Thus the former Theme lands would not be needed for the troops. As the soldiers are resettled at the borders, their old lands could be given to peasants as their consolidated plots.
So, at the same time, it is unlikely that the urban conditions would be all that great. Early factories were notoriously unsafe and unhealthy. Rapid urban expansion also taxes local the local infrastructure. Health and living conditions would suffer even if the best interests of the people were on the minds of officials.
Now, the part time peasant nature of workers means that in order for the peasants to stay happy, the workers need to not be abused too much. On one hand it would be seen as a bad idea to encourage strike actions by granting too many concessions. Repression can't be avoided either. But some concessions are needed so that disease and workplace injuries do not cause too much turnover. From the perspective of public order, it matters not how the disturbances are stopped or at whose expense.
One tool that the Russian government used were police organized unions. They were not interested in the economic interests of the industrialists, but the political interests of the monarchy. Which means their real utility was undercutting the appeal of revolutionary parties. If this is done right, the Gondorian government would essentially organize the workers for the purposes of industrial reform. This would stop more militant actions from taking place that could topple both the monarchy and hurt the long term interests of the industrialists.
In Russia, more common were the mutual aid societies. These provided support for workers in the case of unemployment, accidents or illness that caused loss of wages. Funeral expenses and pensions were also covered. This combined with the repression of trade unions and worker apathy led to trade unions not exactly being a major force in Russia until the final days of the Tsar. After all, if one still had major ties to the land, the appeal to major strike actions was not as strong. The result was that strikes did grow in frequency and size. But they remained spontaneous and unorganized affairs on average.
One of the main goals of this would be to increase wages enough that some minimal amount can be sent home. The idea is to intentionally maximize the use of proletariat remittances to peasant relatives to subsidize rural quality of life. Then, minimal safety conditions will be pushed for so that those who want to return home for the harvest are not so hurt this becomes impossible.
This would have major benefits. First, cities would be the main markets for agricultural products. Because these new plots are closer, transportation costs go down. So these peasants would see their profits rise dramatically. Then the temporary nature of employment in farm and early factories could be dealt with easier. Returning home to work the harvest or going back to the city when the farm was slow becomes much easier. The resulting secondary incomes this allows would then provide stability preventing bankruptcy of the new farms.
In this way, the peasants see their interests protected enough to retain their loyalty. But part of this comes from the cities. Which then means that their power is somewhat curtailed. Before, their role as supplying the food to cities made them powerful. But with these remittances providing a buffer from poor harvests, then the urban areas have leverage. The result is the peasants becoming well off enough to stay loyal but less likely to become able to dicate terms to governments.
But this is a dangerous policy. The industrialists will know that the government is not really all that behind them. Possibly even opposed to their interests. Once union activity gets too well organized, it might become too hard to control. If the conditions animating working class actions are not fully addressed, the same organizations could become the vehicle for the same militant actions they were created to prevent. Similarly, the government organizing the unions would be the same one arresting people for pushing too far and killing demonstrators in the street during strike actions. So the government would be seen as not behind anything but its own interests.
It is at this point where the risk of a general strike would be at its highest. Such actions would naturally produce government repression. If one's wife and children could possibly get caught up in the chaos in bloodshed, reluctance becomes understandable. But families were back in the rural villages. Living standards would be at their worst at this stage. Pay would be so low that its loss would not be a huge deterrence either. Especially when the family farm is still up and running a few miles away.
The government would not be seen as a protector and industrialists as an enemy. Effectively, the workers would see no real significant downside. There would be no barriers to action beforehand. The only outcome the workers would see is one where they benefit. Pro-worker underground militant organizations would find this the idea grounds to operate in.
Part of the reason for this danger would come from the increases in wages themselves. Part of the reason for the single workers living on their own in the cities was the fact wages were too low. They literally could not afford to support them. Women who did follow their husbands into the city typically returned home when they became pregnant. But increase the wages like this and the incentives change. Instead of supporting the peasant class, it would actually shrink and join the urban working class.
Which could then change the dynamics significantly. To deal with the increase in families dependent on their factories, industrialists could easily turn to the "company town" idea. We see this all across the industrializing world. But it was apparently motivated in Russia by what Gondor would also be experiencing - housing shortages. In Gondor, this would be particularly bad because urban areas would have seen housing supplies reduced due to the same war provoking a rise in the demand for housing.
Basically, barracks were set up for workers. Churches, playgrounds, schools and other such public goods were provided by Russian factory owners. This had important impacts. The proletariat in these conditions had significantly lower cultural development, wealth and influence than other working classes. But they also had their more reformist objectives met. And termination, blacklists and lockouts became much more powerful tools to control rebellions from workers.
So the police unions see their appeals undercut. The fact that public goods became provided by industrialists also undercut the value of the government to provide those same services. On one hand, this could reduce working class militancy. It would also reduce dependency on the government at the same time it increases those for the industrialists. Now it is highly unlikely that wages, safety and living conditions would be any better than the absolute minimum to stop the threat of strikes. But it would also be another blow to any attempt to cultivate the proletariat as a class supportive of the government. At the same time, the growth of this class would reduce the numbers of the class most supportive of the government.
A revolution between the inflection point and breakaway point are likely to produce two other models of revolution – the French Revolution or the Russian February Revolution. Both used similar mechanisms. The first is they originated in what passed as the legislature of the respective nations. Both still had strong autocratic monarchies led by weak people on the throne. The legislature – while not powerful enough to control policy, was a good training ground to help people make connections with other elites, plot conspiracies and provide legitimacy to the new regime.
Major crisis was the root cause. Economics was a broad factor in both and financial issues helped push the regime towards collapsing. Wars were important in both – though France the debt caused by the wars was more important while war weariness was the factor in Russia. After both, the nations affected were much more democratic than before. Also, the forces that led the above revolutions were from very similar class backgrounds to what I propose Aragorn’s massacre of nobles would leave as his sole backers.
External focus and early stages of moral corruption of Aragorn allows for nobles to conspire. After all, this elite style conspiracy typically occurs very early in the coalition expansion process, before the process of corruption is to have taken its full toll. This allows them to successfully trap Aragorn and force him to accept a Magna Carta. The slow pace of recovery and the continued wars can produce popular discontent that sparks protests and riots similar to the 1905 Russian revolution – which led to the creation of the Duma. Such unrest can be especially likely in the face of the Easterlings marching into Gondor in the decisive battle option instead of accepting peace. We also need the parliament to exist in universe as a plot device.
No monarch has ever accepted limits on their power unless forced. In both England and Russia, after their parliaments were created, the monarchs attempted to roll back the powers of these institutions. Yet they failed. This is in part because the forces that benefited used the advantages gained to help protect those gains. Also important for our purposes here, such a successful move by the nobles and popular uprising will most likely shift Aragorn’s focus back to domestic politics. As a result, Aragorn is likely to ramp up police repression and become very distrustful of the nobles. It is in this context that towards the end of the military campaigns, when the emergency conditions that grant a greater dependence on the nobles are gone, Aragorn will disband the parliament.
This is likely to again produce a backlash. The nobles will see Aragorn trying to backtrack while cracking down on them. The middle classes and industrialists will be suffering similar problems. Both groups will feel that the system is the only tool they have to preserve their interests, so they will not struggle too hard for outright revolution. After all, the existence of the new economic elites comes from the policies of Aragorn’s while nobility requires a monarchy. Yet the dissolution of the parliament will probably be a bridge too far. Both factions will likely see the parliament as the only means to resolve their differences peacefully and constrain the power of the king without abolishing the monarchy itself. As a result, a second revolution will occur.
In this one, I suspect the Glorious Revolution to be the model. The nobles in both Rohan and Gondor will unite under the banner of Faramir. He is the son of the previous steward dynasty, who was the effective rulers of Gondor before Aragorn’s dynasty returned to power. This means the elites are predisposed to be more loyal to that family. Faramir is also married to a member of the Rohan royal family, getting support from there as well.
At the same time, Moria will only provide limited aid. I suspect that while the aid provided will be essential, the processes involved in rebuilding will take longer than the supply of aid. This means revenues will dip for a period and thus produce another fiscal crisis. This will most likely be right about the time the Glorious Revolution style plotting occurs. When a huge fiscal crisis occurred in feudal France, the Estates General was called. The English Civil War was started when the King tried to reconvene Parliament to get more tax revenues. Aragorn is likely to try the same thing in his desperation. Yet, this will provide the conditions for plotting the Glorious Revolution.
The monitoring of the nobles is also easier as a result. This means that this will probably be the context for the massacre of the nobles. Aragorn will discover the plot – but not before Faramir is recruited. Aragorn will then exploit the fact that the nobles are all in one place for the meeting of the parliament to kill them all. Yet, Faramir has already been invited into power and is likely to have already gathered some of his ranger supporters to march into Minas Tirith.
Meanwhile, the effects I discussed earlier of such a massacre will result in the remaining parliamentarians to rally behind Faramir, producing civil war. In France, the revolution was led by the middle class. The industrialists and urban professionals were members of the Russian Duma prior to the revolution there. So the destruction of nobles would not remove the risk of revolution in this context - especially if the plotting was far enough along. Now, as this support from Parliament would be critical to Faramir coming to power, it is unlikely that he will have the power or even inclination to try and disband it. This would effectively mean the end of effective monarchical power in Gondor.
Meanwhile, the effective power of the working classes will be increasing faster than their material conditions. Education – while probably vocational in orientation for the working classes – will produce higher literacy rates. Russia prior to the February Revolution saw rising industrialization and thus urban working class. However, it was still a primarily rural, semi feudal society. Most of the new factory workers recently moved from the city from the countryside, meaning they still had contacts “back home” in the countryside. Factories have traditionally been a source of radicalism and a place that makes organizing much easier for lower class revolutionaries. At the same time this has been occurring, there is likely to still be a noticeably large population of displaced people from the war and large amounts of unemployed. These are always possible recruits for revolutionary causes.
The conscripts Aragorn called up are not professional soldiers so, unlike the Tower Guard for example, will not have the discipline and morale we would expect. These troops would be the ones with the highest risk of desertion. Including those looking to exploit the turmoil in their rural home villages to seize former noble lands. This was a factor is the collapse of the Imperial Russian Army after the February Revolution.
The economy in Gondor would still be recovering from the devastation of Mordor. Plus the large expansion of demand for war supplies would divert raw materials, transportation and labor away from civilian purposes. The lost workers and horses due to mobilization would hurt overall economic output even if deaths and destruction of productive assets do not occur. And deaths would occur, understandably taking a toll on civilian morale. Such conditions will produce war weariness, food shortages and inflation. As the people demobilize, you have the set up for the October Revolution.
There are many possibilities I see at this point. The first is a French Revolution style revolt. The poor and working class people begin to riot in Osigiath, blocking effective administration for the whole nation. Their demands will be for food primarily. This is a feature common with the collapse of the Tsar as well, with the addition of radical soldiers. Then, the richer membership of the Third Estate broke away from the Estates General and formed their own government.
The second is the October Revolution. Here, an organized band of revolutionaries were able to exploit the chaos of the end of the Tsar for their own purposes. They mobilized radical soldiers to both destroy the army loyal to the Provisional Government and to provide their own muscle. Then, they created a very unusual coalition of anti-elite workers in the core urban areas and peasants in the rural areas with ambitions of becoming moderately well off smallholders. Now, my guess at this point is that the October Revolution will not occur strictly as it did in Russia. Primarily due to the fact that the October Revolution was led by a very experienced and well established conspiratorial party that would not likely be able to form in Gondor given our time frame. The wars Gondor will be fighting are also much less likely to be nearly as devastating to the soldiers as World War One was for Russia. But this does not mean that some elements will not bear some similarities.
Therefore, I think there will be some combination of all of the above. The Glorious Revolution invitation into power by parliament will be present, putting Faramir into the now symbolic post of King. A provisional, anti-monarchy government will be dominated by the new urban elites, industrialists and professionals. Yet these new elites would have to contend with the major economic problems that affect the working classes. The working classes would participate to some degree in militant actions such as workplace occupations, creation of barricades in the street and seizing weaponry.
Without a solid base of support yet, concessions to them must be made to protect the new government. Conscripts that choose to remain active will likely take their weapons with them to side with this new government or rebel on their own. It is entirely possible that a radical, militant and highly opportunist figure could rise in this context to be our Middle Earth Lenin. Given the racial shake ups with the incorporation of Rohan, Rhun and Harad into Gondor, it is possible that this figure could lead the lower class revolution either towards left wing Leninism style governance or the right wing Nazi model. Either way, this is not likely be be pleasant.
Aragorn – if he is not assassinated in a Julius Ceasar manner – would probably be popular with the more professional army. Meanwhile the instability would threaten the economic interests of Moria, who would support Aragorn to secure those interests. Rivendell would support Aragorn as well due to his marriage. However, the other Elves, who have a long history of resistance to tyrannical forces, would probably ally with the provisional government. Outside intervention is a common feature of civil wars – so such activities would not be a surprise from a historical point of view. This means that only the killing of Aragorn can prevent an all-out civil war from the beginning.
The last possibility for civil war comes actually at the very beginning of the story. What happens if Aragorn is not able to secure the throne at all? This would be the case if the tactics I talk about prove ineffective to secure the loyalty of the nobles. First, this would mean the nobles would have a decent amount of troops at their disposal and their own forts – but no one would have enough concentrated power to solidify control. The reconstruction I outline is based on the personal connections of Aragorn. So the central authorities – whoever that becomes – would face the same financial crisis with no means of overcoming them. The people might also rally around Aragorn, producing riots in the southern fiefs. The riots, loss of central authority and numerous armed elites can produce a very bloody period of civil unrest.
Rohan might be tempted to occupy some of Gondor’s northern territories for its own security. It will also be the group that takes Isengard and Dol Goldur. The Southrons and Easterlings will also take territory as well. Such conditions are likely to produce something akin to either the fighting in the Balkans or the Warring States period of China with a little bit of the early French and Russian Revolutions and Russian Civil War.
Of course such events are extreme in their unpredictability. I have no idea what would happen if something similar were to happen in real life. These prove solid foundations for what to expect, but no two revolutions are exactly alike.
It is also possible that the loss of power could lead to Aragorn’s belated moment of self-revelation. The loss of power will take the corrupting influence from his life and allow him to see clearly about his actions. Now, Lenin just before his death wrote a very accurate description of Stalin, warning the party of the dangers of Stalin. We can take this as a possible starting point for Aragorn’s redemption arc. Should Aragorn have empowered some tyrannical person to serve his own interests, this person could easily capitalize on the revolutionary chaos to gain power for themselves. Aragorn in this situation will know this person is evil, is now revolted by this person’s power and no longer benefits from this arrangement. His redemption arc can then be based around a heroic last stand against this person that leaves both dead. Aragorn gives up any hope of returning to power, but saves Gondor from dictatorship. This meets the criteria for both the redemption arc of the 4 stages of the dark side and the moment of self-revelation for winning the primary battle I talked about above.
One of the trends unleashed by emancipation of serfs was the former serfs becoming the new merchants and industrialists. This, despite their illiteracy at the time of emancipation. Interesting was that in Russia, the new merchant class was never really able to supplant the nobility as the main lenders. Which is surprising to me given their economic decline. Which suggests to me that the nobles in Gondor would hit an economic low point. After that, they would see an upsurge in wealth through investing their remaining resources in industrial enterprises.
I suspect that they would begin by exploiting the demand for materials. Timber and mineral rights would become much more valuable as demand for raw materials expands with factories. Which then means the lands retained by nobles could provide revenue supplying the factories. Then, this could be used by the nobles to invest in direct ownership over the trade and manufacturing infrastructure.
But the merchants themselves would come from the former serfs. Probably in part due to the natural migration of them to the cities. The consolidation of peasant land would facilitate the establishment of peasants as the prime links between the rural and urban. The peasants would have everything to gain through exploiting shifts in the economy for their own benefit. Because the nobles would be the bastion of reactionary opinions, they would be slow to capitalize on the trends. By this time, the former serfs would have consolidated their position. This would be helped along by the fact Gondor would come to realize the value of commerce and cities in generating wealth and thus government revenues.
Like in Russia, I suspect that the recently emancipated would become the main industrialists. In the West, growing demand for urban handicrafts expanded at a rate that was manageable for small scale operations. Basically, one would upgrade equipment and expand over time as revenues did. One did not need to invest instantly in a large scale factory. Which is much more feasible for the lower classes to achieve.
But just as important for Gondor is the Russian model. Which was essentially military Keynesianism. The need for guns and the importance of railroads could not be ignored by the Russian Government. Gondor would be in a similar position. Guns would need manufacturing and there was no established infrastructure to handle this. Aragorn's expansion of the military would also see the radical increase in the demand for armor. Soldier pay would then lead to increased consumer spending. Essentially, like Russia, large scale government investment and contracts to private firms for the military would push the development of private industry.
Gondor I suspect would also found factories then turn them over to the private sector for management. Subsidies on top of the contracts makes sense too. The policy is based on the military and security needs of the government. So it would be worth violating sound economics to make sure the factories do not collapse.
Then, there is foreign investments that stepped in too for finances. France saw Russia as a valuable ally, so it provided significant loans to make sure Russia's military modernized enough to serve French national security. The Lonely Mountain and Moria would fill a similar role. Their investments would probably go a long way into securing industrial development for consumer goods. The dwarves are much more commercially oriented than any other nation in Middle Earth.
Partially due to the origins of the workers as former serfs - many of whom were still part time farm workers - the Russian government still had an interest in the welfare of workers. After all, the Tsar was interested in cultivating the loyalty of the serfs. Like how I think Aragorn would be. Plus, the nobles were still a major player in society before the revolution, however reduced in power and wealth. Lastly, like Gondor, the role of government in propping up industry meant industry was weak to resist. It needed government investment and there were insufficient other revenue streams. So industrialists remained a politically weak if economically vital role.
But I suspect that as domestic consumer spending increases, this will change. Gondor's merchants and industrialists will eventually come to supplant the nobles as the main elites. But at the same time, the government concern over worker welfare during the critical formative years would leave workers in a better place than say in the British industrial experience. Increases in consumer spending, greater access to export markets and foreign investments all would make Gondor's industrialists less dependent on Gondor's government. Which then would lead them to shift from cautious and subservient to a more assertive position. We would expect to see a rise in lobbying efforts over time. Which then would lead to changes in the law and regulations into a more industrial/merchant friendly legal environment.
So - one thing that I always found weird is the level of Westernization of Russian elites. Rumor has it that the Russian nobles actually spoke better French than Russian. This was true in England too. But what makes this Russian case different was the reason The French nobles accomplished this via education. The British were literal conquerors from Normandy.
This would be the case for the declining nobles of Gondor. Their cultural impact would be eventually surpassed by the merchant classes though. As trade increases, the goods they bring back will begin to influence Gondor's culture. But more important is the merchants themselves. They are often the first points of contact. Through the merchants, the first exposure to other languages, religions, food, customs and so forth would occur and these carried back.
But here is the interesting part. The foreign capital would be from the dwarves. The Dwarves would also be one of the biggest trading partners. Granted, the Northmen, Southrons and Easterlings would all see increases in trade links and thus merchant induced cultural influence over Gondor. But the dwarves would probably be the ones forming the cultural center of the merchant class in Gondor. As such, dwarven based education centered on business and vocational training would replace the noble and evlish education that would be the "classical" or "high" culture of Gondor.
This, plus the shift in the political power of different classes would produce profound changes. First, it would increase the power of the industrialists by a decent amount. Policy would likely shift to recognize this. Over time, we would likely likely see Gondor shift its framework from the Russian model to a more British one. In this, industrialization would stop becoming a tool for state interests. Instead, industrial growth would eventually be seen as an end itself. Expansion of free trade would become the objective. In its most extreme form, military actions could be used to increase export markets or gain access to resources.
A important part of this would be a shift away from the traditional aristocratic means of finding government employees. Instead of essentially nepotism and political reliability, competence and education will become more valued. Because of the need for the government to manage the growing industrial economy, the education would be more technical and vocational. Which would be most influenced by the Dwarves and also be more likely to produce the sort of technocrats the government would need.
Comments