Writing this as someone who doesn't fall for Tolkien's romanticism of the past but nevertheless is a pedant.
I was reading about how Germanic societies worked before Charlemagne, before feudalism. And essentially what I ended up realizing is that this is the Rohan of Tolkien's world. Instead of a clear division between "warrior" and "farmer", the farmers were the warriors simultaneously. Free-born or freedmen. You are a free man, so you must know how to fight, to defend yourself, your farm, your family, your "people". Of course, I'm sure Tolkien wasn't a fan of the slavery practice, but the "heroic" free men are the ideal specifically.
In this model, the ruler is not your manager/boss, he is "first among equals".
Many haters of Tolkien seem to have the misconception that the Hobbits are his "ideal". But on the contrary, the Hobbits are the men who had forgotten their "heroism", who had become domesticated, dependant on violent men with swords to defend them. They are not what was "lost", that would be Rohan, they are the later stage transition to the "loss" of "heroic freedom", where the divide between farmer and warrior is now the rule (the warrior part of the equation being Gondor, themselves part of this "loss" of "heroic freedom").
So, to be pedantic, he wasn't "pro-feudalism", he was anti-Charlemagne (in the political sense at least), he would align himself with the freeman Stellinga revolt of 841-843, which I imagine to use an analogy, was something like trying to disarm Texans.
The irony of course is that Christianity/the Church played a major role in this domestication of the once "honorable" Germanic farmer-warriors. Tolkien was a devour Catholic.
41 posts and 6 image replies omitted.>>750884For its many faults, the Catholic Church is nothing like the Nazis.
>>750888LotR's ties to Catholicism all lies within the realm of "deepest lore."
The book itself makes basically no mention of religion at all.
>>750888I mean, it's not a hot take, it's literally the case. Like another anon pointed out, "kings" predate feudalism, both in the political and economic sense. The Bible is not "pro-feudalism" if it calls Jesus Christ King. That would be historical revisionism.
>>750890Yeah, it's worse.
Because it still exists, for one.
>>750964Stop being silly, anon.